Kerala High Court
Sujan.K.A vs The State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2020
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
OP(KAT).No.30 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 756/2019 DATED 06-12-2019 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 SUJAN.K.A.
AGED 42 YEARS
ADVOCATE, KANICHADAN HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE SOUTH,
PUTHUVYPE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682508.
2 NAVEESH C.N.,
ADVOCATE, CHAKKARATH HOUSE, KARALAM P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN-680711.
3 SANDEEP T.S.,
ADVOCATE, THALIKULANGARA HOUSE, CHOOLISSERY PO,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS. KAVITHA SANDEEP, W/O.SANDEEP
T.S., THALIKULANGARA HOUSE, CHOOLISSERY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680541.
4 V.A.AJAI,
ADVOCATE, VELLAIKUDATH HOUSE, VASUPURAM,
MUTTATHOORKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680684.
5 RAJEEV KRISHNAN M.A.,
ADVOCATE, MOORKKATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, AVINISSERY,
VELLISSERY PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680306.
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
SMT.K.S.SAMEERA
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-
695001.
2 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM
PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
3 THE SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS,
PATTOM PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
4 ANOGITH B.S.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, LATHA SADANAM, CHEMMAKKAD PO,
PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691014.
5 V.R.SYAM KRISHNA,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.K.M.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, ASWATHY MALAYAMPADOM,
KILIMANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695601.
6 JITHIN G.,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.GOPINATHAN, CHIRATTUVILA VEEDU, IRUMPANANGADU
PO, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691505.
7 ANILA K.N.,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.M.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, 2/1998 C, PADMAM, CHALIKARA
ROAD, CIVIL STATION PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.
8 AJILA M.K.,
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.VIJAYAN, ANJALI HOUSE, AMMAN VEETTIL, CHELANOOR
PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673616.
9 ARUN NATH K.,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.BYJUNATH, HOUSE NO.27/109A SABARITHEERTHAM, PVS
PARK PO, KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673016.
10 SILJA O.T.,AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.KUNJIKANNAN, SILJA NIVAS, OTAYOTH,
TAZHAKUNIYIL, EDAKULAM, KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN-
673306.
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 3
11 DEEPA M.R.,
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O.M.V.RAMACHANDRAN, MAMPULLY HOUSE, PUTHOORKKARA,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-686003.
12 UDAYA K.SANKAR,
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O.M.V.SUDHEENDRAN P.G., PATHIYARATH HOUSE,
MULAYAM PO, VALAKKNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-
680751.
13 DHANNU GIREESH,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O.V.G.GIRIJAVALLABHAN, SREE TANAKI GREEN GARDEN,
PONKUNNAM PO, THRISSUR, PIN-686002.
14 SEEMA P.P.,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.PAMODH, NAYA, NATIKA BEACH, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-686004.
15 NINUMOLE MATHEW,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.K.C.MATHEW, KUNNEL PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM
PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686531.
16 SIJI C.SADANANDA KUMAR,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.C.V.SURESH KUMAR, CHELAKKALLUTHODI, VADAKKEKARA
HOUSE, EZHUVANTHALA, NELLAYA VIA, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN-679335.
17 NAGESWARY S.,
AGED 36 YEARS
KELETHU VEEDU, TOWN WARD, PARASSALA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695502.
18 SAJITHA S.,
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O.RAMACHANDRAN, RAJEEV BHAVAN, EDAMANAKUZHI,
BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695501.
19 FAISAL P.K.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.BAVA P.K., FELLAH MANZIL, GREEN LEAVES VILLA,
BP ANGADI PO, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676102.
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 4
20 NITHOSH P.V.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.VASU P.V., PADATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, MANAL VAYAL
PO, PULPPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673579.
21 DILEESH A.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.HARIDASAN, MOOTHEDATH KATTIL HOUSE, MEENADATHUR
PO, TANALOOR (VIA), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-676307.
22 ANAND PARATHARA,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.PETER PARATHARA, PARATHRA HOUSE, MURINGOOR PO,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680309.
23 VINITHA P.A.,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.MANOJ, ATHIKKAL HOUSE, VELLANI PO, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN-680701.
24 SAIRAM K.G.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SAI BHAVAN, ANAYADI PO,
SOORANAD NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN-
690561.
25 SHIJOSH K.K.,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KATTIKOLTH HOUSE, CHETTIPADI PO,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676319.
26 ABDUL VAHAB V.,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.KUNHUMMUTTY, VADAKETHIL HOUSE, PUTHUR PO,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676503.
27 SAYYED ALIKHAN,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.K.S.HASSAN, KALLAAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM
PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686506.
28 SARITHA R.K.,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.RAMACHANDRAN, T.C.18/2119, KULAKKODEN,
THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, MANGADU, THIRUMALA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695006.
29 ARCHANA K.S. PILLAI,
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 5
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.KUMARA SWAMY PILLAI, NANDANAM, MRA-30,
MANIKANTESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695013.
30 VINOD M.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MANIYAN, SAIKRISHNA, MRA-32, MARUTHARAKUZHI,
KANJIRUMPARA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695030.
31 ABDUL VAHAB M.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MAHEEM, AMAAN MANZIL, NELLIKADU, KANDLA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695030.
32 ARUN A.R.,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.RAJU, ARUN NIVAS, VALIYAVELI PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695021.
33 VISHNU THAMPI,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.K.P.THAMPI, VEENA, TC 38/197, VIVEKANANDA
NAGAR, PANGODU, THIRUVALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695006.
34 BANI P.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.PAREETHU KUNJU, TC 27/648(1), TECHAKUDI LANE,
VANCHIYOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695035.
35 ALI NAFIYUDEEN A.,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.ALI REZULUDEN S., PATTAPPALLY HOUSE, THADICADU
PO, PIN-691306.
36 CHITRA KESAVAN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.ANEESH M.C., SREENILAYAM, POIKATTUSSERI,
CHENGAMANADU PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683578.
37 ARUN K.S.,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, R.S.BHAVAN, VATTAKARIKKAKOM PO,
PACHA PALODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695564.
38 ASHAMOLE P.,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.ANIL KUMAR, REMANIKA HOUSE, VAIKOM, VAIKAPLAYER
PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686532.
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 6
39 SHINTO K.EAPPAN,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.K.A.EAPPAN, KUMBALATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, PULIANMALA
PO, IDUKKI, PIN-685515.
40 LEKSHMI S.SEKHER,
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.V.SOMASEKHARAN, SOUBHAGYA, UC COLLEGE PO,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683102.
41 SIJI E.A.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.AYYAPPAN, ETHAPPILLY HOUSE, THURAVOOR PO,
ANGAMALY VIA, SIVAJIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-
683572.
42 JAYARAJ M.B.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.BABU M.N., MADATHINKAL-SHIVAPRABHA HOUSE,
THIRUNAKKARA NORTH, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
43 NANDINI R.S.,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O.JAYARAJ M.B., MADATHINKAL-SHIVAPRABHA HOUSE,
THIRUNAKKARA NORTH, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
44 JOBY VARGHESE,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, ALUKKAL HOUSE, KRA 89, MEKKAD PO,
KONGOTHARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683589.
45 ANSAR K.H.,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.HAMSA K.C., KALATHINGAL HOUSE, VARAYAL PO,
MANATHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN-670644.
46 JINIMOL P.M.,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.PRADEEP K., ELLICKAL HOUSE, SASTHRA NAGAR,
MARADU PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682018.
47 SIBI P.BIJU,
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O.BIJU S.G., PEACE VALLEY, KOTTARAM NAGAR 67,
CUTCHERY PO, KOLLAM, PIN-690013.
48 SARUN RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 29 YEARS
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 7
S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, DWARAKA, CMC II, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688524.
49 PRAVI PADMA P.P.,
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O.PADMANABHAN, PRIYALAYAM HOUSE, KODAMTHURUTH,
KUTIATHODE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688533.
50 LIJO P.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.PETER, PAYIKKATIN, KADAKKARAPPALLY PO,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688524.
51 SUKANNYA P.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.SURENDRAN, DEEPALAYAM, PAVUMBA PO, KOLLAM, PIN-
695741.
52 PRAVEEN S.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.SOMAN, KARTHIKA, NETTAYAM PO, AMBALAMKUNNU,
POOYAPILLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691537.
53 SIKHA P.,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.BIJEESH PILLAI, KAILAS, NEDIYAVILLA, KUNNATHOOR
PO, KOLLAM, PIN-690110.
54 ABI RAJ,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.RAJENDRA PRASAD, A.K.NIVAS, KATTADY PO,
KOZHIKODU MURI, POOYAPILLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691537.
55 DHANYA A.S.,
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, DHANUS NIVAS, ERAVIPURAM PO,
KOLLAM, PIN-690011.
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH
R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
R4-5 BY ADV. SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
R19-21 BY ADV. SRI.T.KABIL CHANDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 8
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).40/2020, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
OP(KAT).No.40 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA (EKM) 871/2019 DATED 06-12-2019
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 SAJAYAN.O.M
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.LATE K.M.MANI, OLOTHIL HOUSE, PERIYAURAM.P.O.,
PAMBAKUDI, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
(REG.NO.101081).
2 ARUN ALEX
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.ALEXANDER, KL/5977, 2ND FLOOR, INFANT JESUS
BUILDING, BANARAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682031
(RG.NO.S101163).
3 DHANYA S. NAIR
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O.SASHIDHARAN NAIR, AMBATTU (PUTHUSSERY) HOUSE,
KARAMALA.P.O., KOZHIPPILLY, KOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM (RG.NO.S 100814)
4 JYOYTHILAKSHMI
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O.K.F.PRABHU, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ATRUNAPUTRAM.P.O.,
PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (RG.NO.S101347) (APPLICANT
NO.4 DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN MA(E)
2273/2019 DATED 5.12.2019.)
5 V.K.DINESHKUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.P.K.KUTTAPPAN, VAZHAKUDI HOUSE, PINDIMANA.P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (RG.NO.S
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 10
101136).
BY ADV. SMT.K.ANILA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).30/2020, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 11
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
V.G.ARUN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT).Nos.30 and 40 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2020
JUDGMENT
Arun, J.
The petitioners are the unsuccessful original applicants in O.A. (EKM).No.756 of 2019 and O.A.(EKM).No.871 of 2019 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The original applications were filed with the prayer to set aside the objective type (OMR) examination conducted by the Public Service Commission on 22.1.2019 to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II. The reasons urged in support of the prayer were that in the examination, 80 marks were provided for questions covering legal topics, such as Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act etc. and 20 marks for general knowledge, English and Kerala Renaissance. It was alleged that out of the 80 marks on legal topics, majority of the questions were verbatim reproduction of questions from a guide named 'Universal Multiple Choice Questions for Judicial Service Examination, 11 th Edition by Vinay Kumar Gupta', published by the Universal Publishers. It was contended that in order to facilitate the malpractice, the PSC had confined its OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 12 questions to only 4 out of the 23 legal topics which had been listed as probable topics from which questions would be asked. It is also alleged that some of the candidates had got prior information that questions would be asked from that particular guide and thereby had got undue advantage in the examination. In support of the challenge, relevant pages of the guide were produced.
2. Public Service Commission refuted the allegations and stated that the question papers of all the examinations conducted by the Commission are prepared by experts in the concerned subjects. The Commission never directs the question setters to follow any reference book for the preparation of the question papers. After preparation of the question papers, the experts send it directly to the Commission in sealed covers. One among the question papers thus received from different question setters is selected by taking lots and is sent to the security press for printing. Thereupon, the question papers are printed and packed in sealed covers by the press and are opened only inside the examination hall, for distributing to the candidates. It is hence submitted that there was no possibility of leakage of question papers or of any particular question paper being used for an examination. It is the specific contention of the PSC that none of the officers/staff of the Commission dealing with question papers get to open the sealed cover containing the question papers at any point of time, to check its OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 13 contents, as it will adversely effect the secrecy of the entire process. It was submitted that the allegations regarding majority of the questions being from a particular guide and leakage of questions were subjected to a detailed enquiry by the Vigilance Wing of the Commission headed by a Superintendent of Police. The report of enquiry was examined by the Examination Monitoring Committee of the Commission, with reference to the numerous books and guides dealing with the subjects on which questions were asked. After such examination, the committee came to the conclusion that the questions were based on the Bare Acts and not on the application level. Being based on Bare Acts, the questions would have been included in different publications/books relating to law and hence the allegation regarding copying of questions was without substance.
3. In its counter affidavit, the PSC has displayed a comparative chart of the questions included in its question paper and the questions as published by four different law publications. A perusal of the comparative chart revealed that in the question paper, there were more number of questions printed in the guides of other publishers than the questions printed in the Universal Publications guide. With respect to the confinement of questions to four topics, the Commission stated that in the notification inviting applications itself, it had been made clear that there was no guarantee that the question paper will OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 14 cover all the topics.
4. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and perused the report of the Vigilance Inspection Team of the PSC and was satisfied that the Vigilance Team had conducted detailed enquiry in the matter, regarding the allegation of questions being from one particular guide as also the allegation of leakage of questions and had found that there was no material to find the entire questions to have been copied from a particular guide or of the possibility of the questions having been leaked to some of the candidates. The Tribunal considered it inappropriate to exercise the power of judicial review on the actions taken by the PSC in the matter, since the fate of large number of candidates was involved. Accepting the contentions of the PSC that ,adequate measures had been taken to ensure that the test is conducted in a proper and legal manner, the Tribunal rejected the allegations raised by the petitioners and refused to set aside the written test.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated their contentions urged before the Tribunal. It is submitted with vehemence that the undisputed fact of a majority of the questions on legal topics being from a particular guide itself is indicative of malpractice. It is contended that the Tribunal committed a mistake in accepting the enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Wing of the Commission. It is OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 15 contended that the candidates, who had followed the guide published by the Universal Publishers, had an advantage over the other candidates and therefore there was no level playing field as far as the written examination is concerned. It is contended that under almost similar circumstances the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan had interfered with the selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Reliance is placed on the judgment in D.B.Civil Special Apeal (Writ).No.698/2013 and connected cases decided by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC countered the contentions and submitted that no interference is warranted against the impugned order of the Tribunal in execution of the power of judicial review vested with this Court. The decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sajan v. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KLT 133] is pressed into service in support of the proposition that there cannot be pedantic application of the principles of natural justice, as is normally done in the case of disputes involving Administrative Law, to the conduct of examinations by public bodies and that such matters do not merit judicial review, in the absence of clear and clinching material to indicate malafide involvement by the persons who are in a position to control the affairs of the PSC.
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 16
7. We heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas and Sri.S.Aneesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for PSC and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
8. At the outset we have to observe that the cited decision of the High Court of Rajasthan has no application to the allegations raised here; though an identical allegation as in this case was raised there too. The identity is in so far as the recruitment therein was also to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors and one of the allegations was with respect to one of the question setters being attached to a Coaching Center and some of the questions being pulled out from the notes supplied by him to the students at the centre. The Rajasthan PSC countered the said allegation on the ground that there only 25 questions were picked from the question paper of the subject Proffessor and all the question setters had given a written undertaking that they were not working with coaching centers. The concerned Proffessor also filed an affidavit before Court that the allegations were false. The learned Single Judge found the said allegation having been negatived by a co-ordinate Bench of that High Court earlier. The Division Bench too, referred to that allegation and observed that the said allegations were negatived earlier and a representation directed to be filed before the RPSC as to the correctness of the answer key, OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 17 which also was alleged. The allegation considered by both the Courts was of the answer key based on which evaluation was done being erroneous. On an elaborate consideration of the specific questions and the answers in the key both the Courts upheld the allegation as well founded. The learned Single Judge directed a fresh evaluation to be carried out and a fresh select list to be prepared withoutr disturbing those already interviewed. The Division Bench found that the directions of the Single Judge would result in unworthy candidates being considered with meritorious candidates, thus giving the Interview Board a leverage to avoid meritorious candidates and an advantage to un-meritorious candidates, especially since the written test was just for shortlisting and selection was solely on the basis of interview. It is hence the entire selection was set aside by the Division Bench and a fresh selection directed. The decision hence has no application to the above case.
9. As per Annexure A1, the PSC had invited applications from qualified candidates for selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II. The qualifications required are graduation in law and being a member of the Bar with not less than three years active practice in criminal courts. The main topics on which the candidates were to prepare are divided into Parts I, II and III. Part I being general knowledge including current affairs, salient features of the OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 18 Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Duties etc., Part II English and Part III legal subjects including Indian Evidence Act, Cr.P.C., IPC and Minor Criminal Acts like Explosive Substances Act, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, Probation of Offenders Act etc. In the note attached to Annexure A2, it is specifically stated that apart from the topics detailed, questions from other topics prescribed for educational qualification for the post may also appear in the question paper and there is no undertaking that all the topics above may be covered in the question paper. Therefore, Annexure A2 only indicated the general topics from which the questions may be asked and there was no guarantee that questions from outside the indicated topics may not be asked or that questions would be asked from all the topics. Therefore, it was for the candidates to prepare for the exam with reference to the indicated topics. The guides published by various law publishers cannot be the sole basis for such preparation. A Law Graduate with three years experience should have acquired reasonable knowledge about the substantive and procedural laws and the guides can only be used for easy reference. As contended by the PSC, the questions were set on the basis of Bare Acts and therefore, naturally, questions on the important and relevant aspects in various topics would be available in most of the guides on those topics published by law publishers. The comparative chart prepared by the PSC would clearly indicate that OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 19 most of the questions were printed in all the four law publications. Any candidate thorough with the subject would be able to do well in the examinations and the entire case seems to be built on the premise that there should be an equal number of questions from all the guides. We are unable to presume that the candidates had prepared for the examination entirely based on guides and that they have been prejudiced by the questions being adopted from a particular guide. The prejudice alleged is also on account of the petitioners having studied one or other guide from which there were not many questions put. Obviously there has been no attempt to make a thorough study of the subject, in which the appellants have a graduation and also have been practicing in, for at least three years. The exclusive reliance on guides is the very foundation on which the instant case has been built up; the bane of our selections, often eliminating true knowledge in favour of by-heart-study.
10. As far as the contention regarding leakage of questions is concerned, the Vigilance Wing of the PSC had conducted a thorough enquiry and ruled out that possibility. Moreover, from the detailed procedure of setting, printing and distribution of question papers to the candidates, as explained by the PSC through its counter affidavit, we have no hesitation to hold that the possibility of the questions set by a particular question setter being utilised for a particular examination is OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 20 minimal. The third contention, of the questions being confined to 4 among the 23 topics, cannot be countenanced in Annexure A2 itself it was specifically stated that there is no guarantee of questions being asked from all the topics.
11. As rightly found by the Tribunal, this is not a case warranting judicial review, especially since the future and career of a large number of candidates are at stake. The evidence produced by the petitioners or the strenuous contentions urged on their behalf do not compel us to hold otherwise.
In the result, the original petitions are dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE vgs OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 21 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 30/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2019 IN OA (EKM) NO.756/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.756/2019 DATED 10.04.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ERNAKULAM BENCH, WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN THE EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 30.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P2(A2) TRUE COPY OF DETAILS REGARDING MAIN TOPICS OF PROGRAMME NO.01/2019 FOR THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION FOR CATEGORY NO.326/2017 KERALA STATE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS OF THE 1ST APPLICANT WITH REG.NO.S.101048.
EXHIBIT P2(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REG.NO.101436 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKER WITH REG.NO.S.101478 ISSUED TO THE 3RD APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKER WITH REG.NO.101542 ISSUED TO THE 4TH APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKER WITH REG.NO.101447 ISSUED TO THE 5TH APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE QUESTION BOOKLET GIVEN TO THE 1ST APPLICANT FOR THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 21.1.2019 BY THE P.S.C. EXHIBIT P2(A9) THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 'UNIVERSAL, MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE EXAMINATION', 11TH EDITION VINAY OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 22 KUMAR GUPTA.
EXHIBIT P2(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 23.10.2019 FILED BY THE COMMISSION IN OA (EKM) NO.756/2019 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 4.11.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA (EKM) NO.756/2019 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.
OP(KAT).30 & 40/20 23APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 40/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.12.2019 IN O.A. (EKM)NO.871 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A.(EKM)NO.871 OF 2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.8.2017, CATEGORY NO.326/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER WITH ALPHA CODE NO.1, CONTAINING 100 QUESTIONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ANSWER KEY TO THE QUESTION PAPER WITH ALPHA CODE NO.A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ANSWER KEY TO THE QUESTION PAPER CODE WITH ALPHA CODE NO.A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE 11TH EDITION OF THE GUIDE UNIVERSAL MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE EXAMINATION RELEVANT PAGES.
EXHIBIT P2(A6) TRUE COPY OF SYLLABUS IF THE GRADE II CATEGORY NO.326/2017 EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF GRADE II KERALA STATE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
EXHIBIT P2(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 5.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P2(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA THOZHIL VEEDHI ON 9.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 M.A. FOR JOINING TOGETHER.