Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing The Kerala Public Service Commission vs Shaiju T.L on 3 October, 2012

Rathesh K.M vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 15 December, 2012

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.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - C V Rehim - Full Document

Manesh M vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2025

10. Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission, Thiruvananthapuram v. Shaiju T.L. [2013 (2) KLT 946] and contended that a candidate who has incorrectly bubbled the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answer script, cannot challenge rejection of his answer script on the ground that the Commission has mistakenly included his name in the rank list. When the instructions are clearly given which were not followed by the writ petitioner, he has to blame himself.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Nagaresh - Full Document

Bindu John vs Commissioner Of Examinations on 5 February, 2026

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 was decided on the ground 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.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - N Nagaresh - Full Document

K.V.Babu vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 29 May, 2013

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent has brought to my notice the decision of the Division Bench in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shaiju.T.L. (2013 (1) ILR (Ker.) Pg.13) where, it is held that a candidate who has wrongly bubbled the optical mark reader in the answer paper cannot challenge rejection of his answer paper on the ground that Commission has mistakenly shown his name in the ranked list.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Biveesh S vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 22 February, 2013

In the circumstances the decision of this Court in Shaiju's case (supra) and also W.P.(C) Nos. 13454/2013, 12680/2013 and 13905/2010 are to be applied. In the light of W.P.(C) NO. 17737 of 2013 3 the said decisions the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the rejection of their candidature on account of wrong bubbling of their register number is perfectly in order. In the light of the decision referred (supra) the action on the part of the respondents in deciding not to include the petitioner in the ranked list on account of the wrong bubbling cannot said to be illegal. Therefore the writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Biveesh S vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 30 July, 2013

3.The respondents, who were applicants to the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in KSE Board, challenge rejection of their applications on the ground of wrong bubbling of register numbers in their answer scripts. The bubbling of the register numbers in the answer scripts was sine quo non to ensure transparency in the selection. The statement that the category to which the appellants aspired is of such nature where a lenient view should be taken does not appeal to us, at any rate, having W.A.No.1592 of 2013 -2- regard to the ratio of the Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shaiju.T.L. [2013(2) KLJ 437] relied on by the learned single Judge. We are in agreement with that Bench decision. Therefore, this writ appeal fails. In the result, the C.M.Application and the writ appeal are dismissed in limine.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B M Joseph - Full Document

G. Baburaj Aged 44 Years vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 30 November, 2012

2. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, this court has considered similar contentions in the past and has taken the consistent view that an omission to bubble the Register Number or bubbling the Register Number wrongly would invite the action of invalidation. The learned -2- W.P.(C). No. 14319 of 2014 counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench decisions in Suseela v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010 (4) KLT 986 and Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shaiju T.L. (2013 (1) ILR Kerala 13. An unreported decision of a Single Bench dated 18.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No.31402/2013 has also been placed before me in support of the said submission.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Kuriakose - Full Document
1