IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 7904 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- B.P.RANJITH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.BHARATHAN, TC 81/2206, MALINI MANDIRAM,POUNDUKADAVU, P.O.VALIYA VELI, TRIVANDRUM - 21. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695004. REP BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IA.NOS.6569 & 9573/2010 ..... DISMISSED. 27/10/2010. SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. SD/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION FOR THE EXAMINATION PRINTED on the BACK SIDE OF HALL TICKET. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITINER TO RESPONDENT DT. 8/7/2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ANSWER KEY. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT DT.4/12/2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT. 4/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 11/12/2009 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES ATTACHED TO THE QUESTION BOOKLET. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF REPLY BY HE RESPONDENT DT. 5/1/2010. EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT. 24/6/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH CHALAN RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS on the REVERSE OF OMR ANSWER SCRIPT. EXT.R1(B): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN RP.457/04. EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.34380/08. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT IN WA.2487/09. A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C)No. 7904 of 2010 & WA.Nos. 126 & 263 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: These three cases are being disposed of by this common judgment since the issue involved in them is common and identical. 2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Kerala Public Service Commission was justified in invalidating the answer scripts of the two appellants and the petitioner on the ground that they had failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Commission for filling up the answer scripts. To put it a little more explicitly, the appellants and the petitioner failed to enter the Alpha Code in their answer booklets by bubbling the appropriate circles. 3. Appellants had appeared for the written test conducted by the Commission for selection to the post of Cashier-cum-Clerk in Kottayam and Kollam District Co- operative Banks respectively. It is beyond controversy that both appellants had failed to enter the Alpha Code in their answer booklets. Similarly, petitioner in the captioned writ petition had also failed to enter the Alpha Code while writing the written test conducted by the Commission for WPC.7904/10, WAs.126 & 263/10. : 2 : selection to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering under the Technical Education Department. 4. The Commission invalidated the answer scripts of the above three candidates. The common contention raised by these candidates is that their answer scripts ought to have been evaluated by the Commission ignoring the inadvertent mistake committed by them. 5. Though the appellants raised such a contention before the learned single Judge and prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Commission to condone the lapse, the above prayer was not allowed and the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the two appeals. 6. Since an identical issue has been raised in the writ petition, it is also placed before us to be considered along with the two appeals. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioner at length. We have also heard the learned standing counsel for the Commission. 8. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel that the OMR (Optical Mark Reader) answer scripts are designed specially for processing and valuation through Optical Mark Reader (OMR) by electronic means. No manual evaluation of the answer scripts is envisaged or WPC.7904/10, WAs.126 & 263/10. : 3 : permitted so as to ensure strict confidentiality and secrecy in the evaluation process. The OMR answer sheet consists of two parts viz., Part A and Part B with a specific bar code. The candidate has to write and bubble the register number, date of birth and other details in Patr A. In Part B of the answer script, the candidate has to enter the Alpha Code in the relevant column, in addition to bubbling the Code in the relevant space set apart for that purpose. Evaluation of the answer scripts is done only by Optical Mark Reader. The Optical Mark Reader system can correctly evaluate the answer script only if the relevant Alpha code is correctly bubbled in the relevant space. If the Alpha Code is not bubbled by the candidate, the Optical Mark Reader will not be able to conduct the evaluation. It is also pointed out by the learned standing counsel that in a given year about 32 to 37 lakhs of applications are received by the Commission in response to various notifications issued for selection to various posts. Candidates are given specific instructions regarding necessity for correct entry and bubbling of the relevant details. They are also warned that their answer scripts will be invalidated if the instructions are not scrupulously followed. The candidates are also briefed 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the examination. A WPC.7904/10, WAs.126 & 263/10. : 4 : specimen copy of the A and B parts of the answer script is enclosed along with the admission ticket. Candidates can make use of the specimen copy to avoid mistake by familiarising with the same before entering the examination hall. 9. As has been mentioned already, the three unfortunate candidates before us tacitly admitted that they had failed to enter the Alpha Code in their answer scripts. But according to them, this was an inadvertent mistake. May be so. The mistake committed by them cannot be overlooked or ignored. Such a view has been taken by this Court in a catena of decisions. 10. In Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M.Vijaya Shanker (AIR 1992 SC 952), a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has held that such instructions are issued “to ensure fairness in the examination”. The court further held thus: “..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 WPC.7904/10, WAs.126 & 263/10. : 5 : instruction rather than its breach” The above decision has been followed by this Court in a large number of cases. 11. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record and having considered the contentions raised by the candidates, we do not find any reason to interfere with the action taken by the Commission in invalidating the answer scrips. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants and the petitioner. The Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition fail. They are accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.