Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Praveen P.P vs Kerala State Public Service Commission on 12 August, 2015

Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
                                  &
                THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

        MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/8TH CHAITHRA, 1938

                     OP(KAT).No. 21 of 2016 (Z)
                     ---------------------------


       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OAEKM 707/2015 of KERALA
     ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12-08-2015

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN OA:
------------------------------------------

          1. PRAVEEN P.P.
            S/O P.V.PRABHAKARAN, PADINJARROTT HOUSE, MANAKKODY
DESOM, MANAKKODY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 012.

          2. PRAVEEN KUMAR V.S
            S/O SASI VA, VELLAIKUDATH HOSUE, MANIKAMANGALAM P.O.,
MEKKALADY DESOM, PANNYALIKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

          3. UNNIKRISHNAN M
            S/O MURALEEDHARANN, MAMBALA HOUSE, MARATHORVATTOM P.O.,
CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688539.


            BY ADVS. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
                     SMT.MISHAL M.DASAN

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA :
---------------------------------------------

          1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM
PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

          2. STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001.


            R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
            R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

       THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL  HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION  ON  28-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                     OP(KAT).No. 21 of 2016 (Z)
                     ---------------------------

                              APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
               EXHIBIT P1 TRUE  COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.227/2015
DATED 6.8.15.

               EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OA(EKM)
NO.707/2015 DATED 12.8.2015 OF THE HON'BLE KAT.

               EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ANSWER KEY
PUBLISHED BY THE PSC DATED NIL IN A QUESTION PAPER CODE 35/2015.

               EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ANSWER (REVISED)
KEY PUBLISHED BY THE PSC DATED NIL IN A QUESTION PAPER CODE 35/2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS    NIL
-----------------------


JJ                     /TRUE COPY/


                                         P.S.TO JUDGE



            K. SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
             -------------------------------
                  O.P(KAT) NO.21 OF 2016
           ----------------------------------
              Dated this the 28th March, 2016.


                         JUDGMENT

Surendra Mohan, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short) dismissing the O.A.(EKM) 707/2015. The petitioners had submitted applications for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector pursuant to a notification dated 26.12.2014 issued by the first respondent. As part of the selection process they had appeared for a written examination conducted by the PSC on 30.4.2015. After the written examination, the PSC published the final answer key to the question paper. As per the final answer key question Nos:

32 and 37 have been deleted and with respect to question No:49 the wrong answer has been shown as the correct OP(KAT) 21/2016 2 answer. Consequently, persons who wrote wrong answers have been granted marks. It is contended that, prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the procedure that was adopted. The KAT considered the contentions of the petitioners, found that the case was covered by the judgment in T.A.2679/2012 and dismissed the original application.

The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order.

2. According to Adv.Shoby K.Francis who appears for the petitioners, there was no justification for deleting question Nos:32 & 37. In the provisional answer key that was initially published, answers to the said questions were correctly shown. However, without assigning any reasons the said questions have been deleted causing prejudice to the petitioners. With respect to question No:49, the wrong answer has been shown as the correct answer in the final answer key published. The mistake, according to the learned counsel, has vitiated the entire selection process. We have heard Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, Standing Counsel for the PSC also.

3. In view of the fact that questions 32 and 37 have been OP(KAT) 21/2016 3 deleted we do not find any merit in the objections raised against the questions. While considering a similar question another Division Bench of this Court has held in Nowfal H. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Trivandrum [2014(3)KHC 349(DB)] that, pursuant to directions issued by the courts the PSC has evolved a fair procedure by which provisional answers to the questions are published, objections are obtained from experts and on the basis of their opinions, the final answer key is published. It is on the basis of the opinions of experts that the final answers are arrived at. Since the procedure adopted is fair and reasonable it has been found that an interference by this Court with the same is uncalled for.

4. In the present case the contention of the petitioners is that, two questions have been deleted without any justification. With respect to one question, the contention is that wrong answer has been accepted as the correct answer. It is not in dispute that, different question papers were used. Annexure A5 is only one of the question papers out of which OP(KAT) 21/2016 4 three questions are objected to. Since the final answer key is published on the basis of the opinion of experts, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the procedure adopted. As rightly noticed by the KAT, there would be instances where, differences of opinion among experts would also exist. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment over such disputes and to determine which is the right opinion. The Division Bench has in Nowfal H. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, Trivandrum (supra) also cautioned against undertaking such an exercise. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment in the said case.

In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the KAT. This original petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/-

                                               P.V.ASHA
                                                Judge
jj                        /True copy/

OP(KAT) 21/2016    5