Kerala High Court
Ramadevan Pillai vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 31 August, 2011
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/15TH BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 20711 of 2012 (L)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
RAMADEVAN PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.SIVASANKARAN UNNITHAN,SREEKRISHNA VILASAM,
ULIYANADU,KARAMCODU.P.O,KOLLAM-691 579.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN-695 001.
2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVANAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-695001.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 20711 of 2012 (L)
A P P E N D I X
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT-P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE DATED 31/08/2011
EXT-P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION
EXT-P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ADMISSION CERTIFICATE
EXT-P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMA DATED 30/01/2012
EXT-P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/01/2012
EXT-P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET AND SAMPLE OMR ANSWER
SCRIPT.
EXT-P6(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET AND SAMPEL OMR
ANSWER SCRIPT
EXT-P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSTRUCTION TO CANDIDATE.
EXT-P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI
THOZHIL VARTHA DT.8/9/2012.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(c) No.20711 of 2012-L
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th September, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in not including his name in the final rank list for the post of Reserve Driver of the 2nd respondent Corporation. The 1st respondent had invited applications for appointment to the post of Reserve Driver. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The petitioner has passed the necessary practical tests and physical test and has also appeared for the written test. While filling up the columns on his answer sheet by darkening the bubbles, the petitioner darkened the wrong bubble, thereby committing a mistake in entering his register number. The Examiner who was available at the centre therefore directed the petitioner to erase the wrong bubble and to darken the correct bubble. Though the petitioner had followed the above procedure, the Computer did not recognise W.P(c) No.20711 of 2012-L 2 his answer sheet and consequently, he has not been included in the final rank list published by the 1st respondent.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has answered 75 questions out of 100 and expects more than 60 of his answers to be correct. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for having his OMR answer sheet valued manually by a competent person, so as to determine whether he is eligible to be included in the rank list.
3. Advocate P.C.Sasidharan, who appears for the 1st respondent, stoutly opposes the above contentions. It is pointed out that there is no provision for manual valuation of the answer sheets in the scheme of examination notified by the 1st respondent. It was upto the petitioner to have been careful enough in entering his register number, which is the crucial factor required for the purpose of proceeding with the valuation of an answer sheet. Having not done that, the computer had not valued his answer sheet. Many others who had submitted such erroneous answer sheets have also met with similar consequences. Therefore, it is contended that the relief sought for may not be granted.
4. It is to be noticed that the system of evaluation that is W.P(c) No.20711 of 2012-L 3 contemplated for the examination conducted by the 1st respondent is through the computer. For the purpose, an OMR answer sheet is used. The candidates are required to darken the bubble that is applicable to them carefully in order to ensure that the evaluation is done properly. Sufficient instructions are also given to the candidates before the examination regarding the manner in which the register number as well as the answers are to be indicated. The petitioner has committed a mistake in entering his register number. As a consequence, the computer has not been able to recognise his answer sheet. A number of persons who had committed similar or other mistakes have also met with the same consequence. There is no justification for permitting the petitioner alone to be treated differently. That would have the effect of conferring an undue advantage on the petitioner. I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition.
This Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/