IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1239 of 2011(D)
1. SHEELA JACOB,MURINGASSERIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. CHAIRMAN,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,KERALA PUBLIC
4. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY(EXAMINATIONS),
5. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/01/2011
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.1239 of 2011
==================
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a candidate who appeared for the test for
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State
Electricity Board, conducted by the Public Service Commission. Her
candidature has been invalidated on the ground that she wrongly
bubbled her register number in the OMR answer sheet. The petitioner
challenges the action of the PSC in invalidating her candidature on
account of wrong bubbling of the OMR sheet. Although the petitioner is
aware of the fact that this Court has in Susheela v. Kerala Public
Service Commission [2010 (4) KLT 986] upheld the invalidation of
candidature on account of wrong bubbling of the OMR sheet, the
petitioner contends that petitioner’s case is different from other cases
for three reasons. The first is that this particular promotion test is
being conducted only once in a while. The last test was in 2005 and it
is only after a direction from this Court in a writ petition that the
present test is being conducted. The next test correspondingly likely to
be after many years and, therefore, if the candidature of the petitioner
is not accepted for this test, the petitioner will have to wait for years to
get promotion. The second contention is that immediately after
bubbling the OMR sheet, the petitioner realised the mistake and
w.p.c.1239/11 2
requested for a fresh OMR sheet, which was denied to her. According
to the petitioner, there is no stipulation anywhere that a second OMR
sheet would not be issued if the first one is wrongly filled up. This is
further clear from the fact that in the hall ticket issued to the petitioner
there was no specific stipulation that a second OMR sheet will not be
supplied, whereas such a condition is now being added in hall tickets
being issued by the PSC. Lastly, the petitioner would contend that the
invigilators of the examination themselves had permitted the petitioner
to write the test assuring the petitioner that notwithstanding the wrong
bubbling of the register number in the OMR sheet, the PSC is likely to
consider the petitioner’s candidature.
2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC
also.
3. Admittedly the issue involved is squarely covered by the
decision in Susheela’s case (supra). It is a Division Bench decision,
which is binding on me. I am not satisfied that the reasons pointed out
by the petitioner are sufficient to direct the PSC to consider the
petitioner’s candidature despite the said decision. The fact that
promotion test is being conducted once in a while should have been
born in mind by the petitioner while filling up the OMR sheet. In fact
the petitioner had been put to notice regarding the necessity to fill up
the OMR sheet carefully. I am of opinion that the PSC had rightly
w.p.c.1239/11 3
denied a second OMR sheet. Already the State is facing a situation
where there are many complaints about bogus appointments. If the
candidates are issued with second OMR sheet, that would also be a
handle to those who indulge in fraudulent practices. The fact that the
petitioner continued to write the examination on the advice of the
invigilators does not give any right on the petitioner in the matter of
invalidation of the candidature on account of the wrong bubbling of the
OMR sheet. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge