Kerala High Court
Rathesh K.M vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 15 December, 2012
Author: C.K Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 14075 of 2013 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
1. RATHESH K.M, S/O.KARTHIAYANI.K.M.,
KUNNUMPURATH MAVILA HOUSE
KADUKKARAM, P.O.KAKKARA, VIA M.M.BAZAR
KANNUR-670306.
2. UNNIKRISHNAN.M., S/O.KANNAN.K.,
KANNAVIL HOUSE, CHEPPARAMBAP.O., NEDIYENGA,
VIA.SREEKANDAPURAM
KANNUR-670631.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
R BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14075 of 2013 (H)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET PERTAINING TO THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DATED
27.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT WHICH APPEARED
IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 22.12.2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1(a) COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 13454/2013
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
C.K ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 14075 of 2013-H
-----------------------------------------
On this the 16th Day of December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are candidates participated in the selection process conducted by the respondent for appointment to the post for 'Reserve Conductors' in the Kerala State Road Transport corporation (K.S.R.T.C). Issue involved in this writ petition is with respect to rejection of their candidature on the ground that the petitioners had incorrectly bubbled or omitted to bubble the 'Optical Mark Reader (OMR)' Answer Script. Name of both the petitioners were included in Ext. P2 list in the rejected category for the reasons that they have bubbled the Register Number in the OMR Answer Script wrongly or had failed to bubble the Register Number. The rejection is challenged on the basis that in an earlier selection conducted by the Public Service Commission (P.S.C) for recruitment of Reserve Drivers in K.S.R.T.C, a decision was taken to grant relaxation with respect to candidates who committed mistake in bubbling W.P.(C) No. 14075/2013 : 2 : or not bubbled the Answer Scripts. Ext. P4 News Paper clipping is relied on inorder to to contend that in the said selection 1375 candidates were additionally included in the rank list, whose candidates were not accepted earlier because of non bubbling or wrong bubbling of the Register Numbers in the OMR Answer Scripts.
2. In the counter affidavit, the respondent had contended that usually in the selection process, the OMR test will be conducted prior to short listing of the candidates. But in the case of Reserve Drivers, decision of the commission was to finalise the selection based on practical test (H-test and Road test). The selection was conducted mainly based on such practical tests and the OMR test was conducted only for the sole purpose of preparing inter-se ranking among the candidates who became successful in the practical test. Under such context, the respondent corporation took a decision to include all the candidates who passed the 'H-test' and 'Road test', which was conducted prior to the OMR test, W.P.(C) No. 14075/2013 : 3 : irrespective of the fact that some of them have failed in correctly bubbling the Register Numbers. But so far as the present selection for 'Reserve Conductors' such a circumstance is not existing and hence the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the procedure adopted in the case of selection of Reserve Drivers is to be followed in the present selection also.
3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent corporation had drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shaiju T.L. [2013 (1) I L R (Ker.) pg. 13]. In the said case, rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that wrong bubbling of Register Number in the OMR sheet was only a technical error, which could have been rectified at the instance of the petitioners, it was held that instructions were clearly given which were not followed by the candidates for which he has to blaim himself for the rejection. In the rejection of candidature in such cases the commission is not arbitrarily W.P.(C) No. 14075/2013 : 4 : exercising any power or authority to create any disadvantage to the candidates. While allowing a writ appeal filed by the P.S.C, the Bench reversed the view taken by a learned Judge in holding the rejection of candidature as illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present selection being one made for the very same corporation, the P.S.C ought to have allowed relaxation and included the candidates, despite the wrong bubbling or non bubbling of the Register Number. But as held in the decision cited above, when instructions are specific with respect to bubbling of the Register Number, it cannot be held that the respondent had acted any illegal or arbitrary manner in rejecting the candidature. Merely because the corporation had given relaxation in another selection, it cannot be held that the same benefit should be extended for all the selections.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was even failure on the part of the Commission to W.P.(C) No. 14075/2013 : 5 : consider whether such a relaxation can be extended with respect to the present selection. But even assuming that the P.S.C had blindly followed the instructions and rejected the candidature in cases where there was wrong bubbling or non bubbling of Register Numbers, this Court cannot hold that the decision is illegal or arbitrary, merely because P.S.C had failed in considering the question of relaxation.
Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition deserves no merit and same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.