IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34380 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHA MANJU K.M., D/O. K.K. MOHANAN, AGED 27 YEARS, MANJIMA, SRINGAPURAM WEST, KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DIST. PIN -64. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.P.S.C., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, TVM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 34380 of 2008-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a candidate who applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Kerala State Electricity Board, is aggrieved by the non-valuation of her answer paper by the Public Service Commission. 2. The notification is one published on 31.7.2007. Ext.P1 is the admission ticket issued to the petitioner directing her to appear for the written examination scheduled on 3.5.2008 at 11 a.m. to 12.15 p.m. Ext.P2 is the copy of the instructions accompanying the same. 3. When the short list was published as per Ext.P3, the petitioner’s register number was not included either in the main list or in the supplementary list. The reason that is stated in Ext.P3 for non- inclusion is that the petitioner wrongly bubbled the register number 107201 resulting in invalidation of the answer paper. Even though she filed Exts.P4 and P5 representations seeking for a reconsideration, finding that no favourable consideration is being made, this writ WPC 34380/08 2 petition has been filed. 4. According to the petitioner, she has not violated the instructions incorporated in Ext.P2. It is also pointed out that non- filling of a column is not a sufficient ground for invalidating the answer paper. According to the petitioner, she had very correctly written the register number in the square columns but on account of rush and haste there would have been an error in the register number. Mainly, it is argued that even going by the terms of Ext.P2, an answer paper can be invalidated only if the candidates wrongly write the register number in the square column or bubble more than one column in a line or not bubbling even a single column in a line. These contentions have been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that the petitioner was allotted the register number 107201. She wrongly bubbled the register number as 10720. She had not bubbled the column corresponding the last digit of the register number. She had left one line without bubbling. It is pointed out that as per para 6 of the instructions in Ext.P2, the candidates have been directed to enter the register numbers WPC 34380/08 3 and alpha code in the columns provided and to blacken the bubbles correctly or else their scripts would be invalidated. There is a further caution to the effect that they alone would be responsible for such incomplete/wrong entries. 6. Para 5 of the counter affidavit states that in the office of the Public Service Commission answer scripts are valued with the help of Optical Mark Reader. If the bubbles are not properly blackened, the system cannot read it correctly. So many answer scripts were invalidated due to wrong bubbling of register numbers and alpha codes. It is also submitted that Rule 11(v) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure empowers the Commission to take appropriate decisions. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court in Y.C. Shivakumar and others v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others {(1992) 2 CCC 207}, T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and another {(2008) 9 SCC 403) and that of a Division Bench of this court in Rangaswamy v. K.P.S.C. (1982) KLT 574). It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission that these instructions are issued in public interest and therefore no deviation can be made and strict adherence to the same is WPC 34380/08 4 the rule. 7. In Ext.P2 instructions to the candidates, in para 3 it has been clearly stated that candidates should record the register number, date of birth, community, name of examination, date of examination, question booklet alpha code, etc. in the respective columns. It is further stated that in the case of candidates who fail to comply with the same, their answer papers will be invalidated. 8. Page 11 of the paper book contains Ext.P2(2) special instructions in respect of the candidates who appear for the objective type test. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission relied upon clauses 6 and 10 therein. It is stated in clause 6 that if the question booklet alpha code, register number and blackening of the bubbles are incomplete or incorrect, the answer papers will be invalidated. It is clearly stated in para 6 that the candidates should record their details at the allotted spaces. In para 10 illustrations have been given as to how the columns have to be filled up and the spaces have to be bubbled up. Therein also, it is clearly stated that if the spare columns are filled wrongly, if instead of one bubble more than one bubbles are blackened or in the event of not even one bubble blackened by the candidate, the WPC 34380/08 5 answer papers will be invalidated. 9. The instructions in para 10 as noted above, is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue that the case herein does not come within the above stipulations. It is not a case where something is wrongly written in the square columns and it is not a case where more bubbles have been blackened or none of the bubbles have been blackened. This is a case where one bubble has been left without blackening and such a case is not covered by any of the instructions and hence invalidation is not correct. 10. The above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission. It is clear from clause 6 itself that if the blackening of the bubbles are incomplete or is done in a wrong manner, the answer paper can be invalidated. It is also clear from that the candidates alone will be responsible for any mistakes. Thus, the candidates have been put to notice about the consequences in such cases. As pointed out in the counter affidavit, valuation of answer papers are being done with the help of. Optical Mark Reader. If the bubbles are not properly blackened, the system cannot read it correctly. It is also pointed out WPC 34380/08 6 that this is not a sole case and so many answer papers have been invalidated due to wrong bubbling of register numbers and alpha codes, which is clear from Ext.P3 itself. 11. The instructions contained in Ext.P2 are binding on the candidates as well as the respondents. There cannot be any relaxation as the Commission is bound to strictly follow the norms. When the consequences are clearly spelled out in the instructions itself, any violation of the same will result in invalidation of the answer paper. In this case, the register number of the candidate was 107201. But the candidate wrongly bubbled the register number as 10720 which is incomplete. There is no escape from the consequences. 12. In Y.C. Shivakumar's case {(1992) 2 SCC 207} the Apex Court considered the effect of evaluation of answer papers by the Public Service Commission. While considering the said question, it was held in para 3 that “what was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to minimise any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach.” Further, in para 5 their Lordships held that “competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the WPC 34380/08 7 Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly.” Even though the question raised therein is not strictly identical to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the Commission is bound to observe the instructions strictly in the light of the larger public interest. When the consequences of the breach have been clearly spelled out and discretion is not given to condone the same, the instructions can only be strictly observed. Therefore, the invalidation of the answer papers of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/