IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34929 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAFEEKKA BALKEES, W/O. MUHAMMED SALMAN, AGED 28, TAJ MANZIL, ROSAPOOKANDAM, KUMILY, IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANILAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34929/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET BEARING REGISTER NO.J110029 FOR L.P.S.A. (TAMIL) NAMELY CATEGORY NO.63/06. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR U.P.S.A. (TAMIL-CATEGORY NO.65/06 BEARING REG.NO.J120139. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DTD. 12/11/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34929 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her applications for the post of LPSA and UPSA by the P.S.C. The applications have been rejected on the ground that she has wrongly bubbled the column provided for entering the register number in the OMR sheet. The petitioner contends that is a curable defect, for which the petitioner's application cannot be rejected. The question as to whether wrong bubbling of the register number can result in rejection of the application has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Neena N.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Another(2010 (1) KHC 172) and held against the candidate. The Division Bench of this Court has, in Writ Appeal No.2487 of 2009 has taken the same view. In view of the same, there is no merit in this writ petition. Therefore the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vps 2