IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24305 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHAVANA.S., W/O.HARIKUMAR, "RESAMISHY" KRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, KARUVISSERY, KARAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE - 673010. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695033. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 24305 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a person who participated in the State eligibility test conducted this year. The petitioner did not come out successful in the test. The petitioner is challenging the test itself in this writ petition, on the ground that the negative marks for wrong answers were given during valuation which is improper. According to the petitioner, in other similar examinations, negative marks are not given. The petitioner also raises a contention that during former years, the scheme was approved by the Government as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P6, whereas, as is clear from Ext. P7, the prospectus was not approved by the Government. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records connected with the case. b) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing the applications of negative mark system in the State Eligibility Test Examination 2010. c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore 123 marks scored by the petitioner in SET Exam-2010 and declare the petitioner passed in the examination. d) declare that the petitioner is entitled to apply for the post of Plus two lecturer examination called for by the Public Service Commission and to appear in the Plus two Lecturer examination/interview.” 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. The petitioner is bound to fail in this writ petition for more than one reason. The first is that at the time of obtaining the prospectus for the examination, the petitioner was very much aware W.P.C. No. 24305/10 -: 2 :- that for the examination, negative marks would be given for wrong answers. Knowing fully well about the negative marks, the petitioner wrote the test and only after publication of results, the petitioner has challenged the negative marks after finding that the petitioner did not succeed in the test. After having written the test in accordance with the prospectus knowing fully well that there would be negative marks for wrong answers, the petitioner cannot, thereafter, turn around and challenge the test itself, which is against the settled law. Secondly, there is no constitutional or statutory prohibition in awarding negative marks for wrong answers in any written test. Whether negative mark should be awarded for wrong answers is a policy decision to be taken by the authorities who conduct the test. This Court cannot say that the same is invalid insofar as there is no prohibition for the same anywhere. The petitioner's contention that for earlier years, prospectus was approved by the Government and this year it was not, does not find favour with me. Earlier years also, the approval was by a Government Order. This year also the prospectus was approved by G.O (Rt) No. 427/10/Gl. Edn. dated 27/01/2010 and G.O. (Rt ) No. 587/10/Gl.Edn. Dated 6/2/2010, which is made clear in Ext. P7. As such, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the prospectus was not approved by the Government. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.