IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2173 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SABU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, GRAE MOUNT, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 651. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 2173 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner appeared for the written examination in connection with selection to the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in Palakkad District. The question paper for the examination was in a booklet form having four Alpha Codes ABC&D. Specific instructions were given to candidates to bubble their Alpha Code in the space provided for in the answer script that is part B thereof. There was also a instruction that the answer scripts will be invalidated, if it is not so done. Apparently, petitioner neither bubbled in the space so provided nor did write the Alpha Code in the OMR answer script. It seems that the OMR machine rejected his answer script. Accordingly, the answer script was invalidated. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner contending that the PSC had applied cut off marks that this was illegal that the petitioner was not included in the shortlist and permission be given to participate in the further process of W.P ( C) No. 2173 of 2008 2 selection. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the PSC reads as follows: “It is most respectfully submitted that the selection for the post is based on the OMR test held on 6.1.2007. All the candidates admitted for the test have been given individual instructions to bubble their alpha code in the space provided for that in the answer script (part B of the answer script). Otherwise their answer scripts will be invalidated. It is submitted that the petitioner neither bubbled nor written his alpha code in the OMR answer sheet (Part B). As the OMR machine rejected his answer script to value without alpha code the answer script was invalidated. Hence his register number is not included in the probability list for the post published on 7.12.2007. The petitioner has not filed any complaint against non-inclusion of his register number in the probability list at any of the stages of selection to the post till date. The short list was published on 7.12.2007 and verification of documents and other tests were held on 17.12.2007 and 18.12.2007 at District Panchayat Office, Palakkad and appeal measurement was held on 26.12.2007 at KPSC District Office, Thrissur. The writ petition has been filed only on 16.1.2008 well after the appeal measurement held on 26.12.2007. I am of the view that it is not possible to fault the PSC for invalidating the answer script of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in para 3 of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be possible for the PSC to value W.P ( C) No. 2173 of 2008 3 the answer script of the petitioner even now. May be it is possible. But the point is whether they have committed any error in law or jurisdiction in invaliding his answer script Admittedly, the petitioner did follow the instructions as such. In my view, no such error can be detected in the action taken by the PSC. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is therefore, dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 2173 of 2008 4 ORDER 25th May, 2007