Kerala High Court
Manesh M vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:96690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24795 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MANESH M.,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O MOHANAN, MADATHIL (HOUSE),
PALLIYARA, AGALI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678581
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SMT.ABHIRAMI S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT- ANNEX-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
KERALA PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
3 THE DIRECTOR
SCERT KERALA, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SMT.KB SONI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.P.C.SASINDRAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96690
W.P.(C) No.24795/2025
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025 The petitioner is currently working as a temporary Physical Education Trainer at Deshbandhu Higher Secondary School, Thachanpara, Palakkad. The petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to remedy a grave injustice caused due to the mechanical invalidation of his Kerala Teacher Eligibility Test (K-TET) Category IV result on the ground of a minor, unintentional technical error namely, omission of bubbling a single digit ("0") in the registration number field of the OMR sheet, though all other details, including the written registration number, name, and date of birth, were correctly filled in.
2. The K-TET, governed by the State of Kerala through the Kerala Pareeksha Bhavan and the SCERT, is a 2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :3: mandatory eligibility criterion for appointments and approvals in teaching positions across Government, Aided, and certain Unaided Schools in the State. As per the Notification dated 05.11.2024 issued for the K-TET November, 2024 cycle, the examination was held in January 2025, with the Category IV exam conducted on 19.01.2025.
3. The petitioner participated in the said examination. However, upon the declaration of results on 24.04.2025, the petitioner was shocked to find his result displayed as "Invalid OMR Details/Disqualified". The petitioner discovered that although he had correctly written his Registration Number as "409068" in the designated box on the OMR sheet, he inadvertently forgot to bubble one digit specifically, the '0' after '409' due to exam anxiety and pressure. This single-digit bubbling omission caused the system to reject his answer script for want of machine readability.
2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :4:
4. The petitioner states that the error was wholly unintentional and not fraudulent or deceitful in any manner. He had answered all questions diligently and on verifying the official answer keys post publication, he found that he had obtained scores of passing marks aggregating to a qualifying level under the minimum cut-off mark of 90. Had his OMR sheet been valued, he would have been declared as passed.
5. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of Kerala, explaining the circumstances and requesting human consideration. However, the representation was not considered or disposed of. Thereafter, he approached the Controller of Examinations, Kerala Pareeksha Bhavan, but was verbally informed that the officials had no authority to act upon such requests. Thus, his request was effectively rejected without affording any hearing or merit based decision.
6. Clause 22 of the K-TET Notification dated 05.11.2024 states that if any clarification is required on matters 2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :5: not expressly covered in the notification, the final decision shall rest with the Secretary, General Education Department of Kerala. Clause 23, vests jurisdiction with the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in case of any disputes.
7. Moreover, the Notification mandates that invigilators supervising the examination shall verify whether all entries in the OMR are properly made before collecting the sheets. In the present case, the invigilator did not verify or correct the bubbling error despite such duty, which adds to the gross procedural lapse in the examination process.
8. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Vishalkumar Kanubhai Patel v. High Court of Gujarat [2024 GUJHC 45100], wherein the Court, dealing with a materially similar case involving omission to properly encircle the roll number in the OMR sheet, held that the mistake in encircling roll number in OMR sheet is of trivial nature. This decision establishes a precedent for granting 2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :6: equitable relief in cases involving minor, inadvertent, and non- malicious technical errors that do not obstruct evaluation, contended the petitioner.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent.
10. Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission, Thiruvananthapuram v. Shaiju T.L. [2013 (2) KLT 946] and contended that a candidate who has incorrectly bubbled the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answer script, cannot challenge rejection of his answer script on the ground that the Commission has mistakenly included his name in the rank list. When the instructions are clearly given which were not followed by the writ petitioner, he has to blame himself.
2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :7:
11. The counsel for the petitioner on the other hand relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.1845 of 2024, wherein it was held that as long as the identity of the candidate can be easily verified from his answer sheet, a lapse on his part in not writing the last digit of his 10 digit roll number on the same could not be treated as a material irregularity.
12. There is no dispute that the petitioner had appeared for the eligibility test conducted in November, 2024. Ext.P7 is the answer sheet (Category IV) applicable to the petitioner. The mistake is in bubbling of a circle with regard to his roll number. Ext.P7 carries the signature of the petitioner. It carries the signature of the invigilator also. From Ext.P7, the identity of the petitioner is discernible.
13. The respondents have no case that Ext.P7 answer script is belonging to some other candidate. As long as there is sufficient material to show that Ext.P7 answer script is 2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :8: of the petitioner and the answer script is bearing his signature, for a trivial mistake of non-bubbling of one of the columns relating to registration number, the petitioner need not be forced to write the examination again.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to evaluate Ext.P7 OMR answer script of the petitioner bearing Register No.409068 in respect of the K-TET (Category IV) examination held on 19.01.2025 and to publish the result based on the performance of the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR 2025:KER:96690 W.P.(C) No.24795/2025 :9: APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 24795 OF 2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (K-TET) CATEGORY IV EXAMINATION NOTIFICATION DATED 05/11/2024 ALONG WITH THE TRANSLATED ENGLISH DOCUMENT Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/01/2025 HAVING APPLICATION NUMBER: 129061 WITH ROLL NUMBER: 409068 APPLIED FOR CATEGORY IV: SUBJECT-PED, LANGUAGE-ENGLISH Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION RESULT OF THE PETITIONER FOR KTET NOVEMBER 2024 MARKED AS 'INVALID OMR DETAILS / DISQUALIFIED' Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE EDUCATIONAL MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 30/04/2025 ALONG WITH THE TRANSLATED ENGLISH DOCUMENT Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2025 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND THE TRANSLATED ENGLISH DOCUMENT Exhibit P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/06/2025 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND THE TRANSLATED ENGLISH DOCUMENT Exhibit P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OMR SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.