Kerala High Court
Murshid.M vs Commissioner For Government ... on 20 November, 2024
2024:KER:87042
WPC.No.32199/24 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 29TH KARTHIKA,
1946
WP(C) NO.32199 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MURSHID.M.,
AGED 27 YEARS,
SON OF AHAMMED, MANNIL HOUSE, PANNIPPARA,
EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 541.
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
GEORGE RENOY
ARJUN REMANAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS,
PAREEKSHABHAVAN, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 012.
SRI.V.K.Sunil, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:87042
WPC.No.32199/24 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who appeared for the K.TET examination, which is one of the requirements for getting an appointment as a school teacher, has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the denial of the publication of the results in the examination, as he was disqaulfied. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner was disqualified on the reason that, while bubbling the column set apart for the register number in the OMR sheet, the number was shown incorrectly.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, that was only a trivial mistake and that by itself cannot be a ground to disqualify the petitioner as such. It is also contended by the petitioner that, even though there was a mistake in bubbling the register number, the number was correctly mentioned in the OMR sheet in writing, and therefore, there was no difficulty in identifying the answer sheet of the petitioner. This writ petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs:
"i) call for the records relating to Ext.P3.
2024:KER:87042 WPC.No.32199/24 3
ii) issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P3.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondent to re- consider the K-TET examination result of the petitioner untrammeled by the technical mistake in the OMR sheet, "Roll Number bubbled wrongly".
iv) dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.
v) issue such other writs, orders, directions including interim orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
vi) allow this writ petition with costs."
3. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that the mistake committed by the petitioner was very crucial and a total of 1095 candidates were already disqualified for the very same reason in the examination in which the petitioner attended. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. V.Shaiju T.L [2013(2) KLT 946].
2024:KER:87042 WPC.No.32199/24 4
3. After considering all the relevant aspects and the observations made by the Division Bench in Shaiju's case (supra), I do not find any scope for granting the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. It is to be noted that, in Shaiju's case (supra), an exactly similar issue was considered by this court and the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the judgment passed by the learned single judge, by holding that the mistake referred to above is attributable to the petitioner alone and, therefore,, opportunity cannot be granted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said judgment was rendered in respect of a competitive examination conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission, whereas, the present examination was only a qualifying examination, where the relief sought by the petitioner will not affect the status of any other persons who attended the examination. However, on carefully going through the observations in Shaiju's case (supra), it can be seen that the decision taken therein was not in view of the fact that it may affect the status of other candidates. But on the other hand, it 2024:KER:87042 WPC.No.32199/24 5 was decided on the reason that the mistake was attributable to the petitioner therein. Besides, it was also observed that, in the said examination 129 candidates were disqualified for the very same reason.
Thus, it is evident that the factual circumstances under which the Division Bench rendered the decision in Shaiju's case (supra) are exactly similar and therefore, a different conclusion is not possible. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/21.11.24 2024:KER:87042 WPC.No.32199/24 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32199/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.4.2024 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD NO.805701 OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE K-TET EXAMINATIONS OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.9.2024