Kerala High Court
G. Baburaj Aged 44 Years vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 30 November, 2012
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 14319 of 2014 (L)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
G. BABURAJ AGED 44 YEARS
ZS/O GANGADHARAN PILLAI, KARITHIKALAYAM KODAMTHURUTH
KUTHATHODE PO, KUTHITHODE, ALAPPUZHA
PIN:688 533.
BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN
SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695001.
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, KPSC
BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,STANDING COUNSEL,KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14319 of 2014 (L)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BEARING
REGISTGRATION NO.S121819.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ER V(3) 4464/2010/EW DATED
30.11.2012 OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION AND PUBLISHED IN THOZHILVARTHA DATED
15.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST COME TO EFFECT FROM 23.8.2012 FOR
KSRTC RESERVE DRIVER POST PUBLISHED IN THOZZHIL VEEDHI
DATED 12.1.2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------- NIL
// True copy //
PA to Judge
das
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
=========================
W.P.(C). No. 14319 of 2014
=================================
Dated this the 9th day of June 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of Painter Gr.II in the first respondent Corporation. The second respondent conducted the selection process. A written test was conducted. Ext.P1 is the petitioner's Hall Ticket. However, by Ext.P2, the petitioner's answer scripts were invalidated for the reason that he has not bubbled his Register Number. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the omission to bubble the Register Number was only a mistake. Petitioner has entered the Register Number correctly in words. Therefore, there is no difficulty in identifying the Register Number of the petitioner. For the only reason that he had omitted to bubble the Register Number, it is contended that his answers may not be invalidated.
2. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, this court has considered similar contentions in the past and has taken the consistent view that an omission to bubble the Register Number or bubbling the Register Number wrongly would invite the action of invalidation. The learned -2- W.P.(C). No. 14319 of 2014 counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench decisions in Suseela v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010 (4) KLT 986 and Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shaiju T.L. (2013 (1) ILR Kerala 13. An unreported decision of a Single Bench dated 18.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No.31402/2013 has also been placed before me in support of the said submission.
3. Heard. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has omitted to bubble the Register Number. As stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the method of valuation adopted by the said respondent is the Optical Mark Recognition method. The valuation is done by the Computer and an omission to bubble the Register Number is a serious infirmity that justifies the invalidation of the answer sheet.
4. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of two Division Bench decisions reported in 2010 (4) KLT 986 and 2013 (1) ILR 13 (cited supra) the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE das