IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24305 of 2010(K)
1. BHAVANA.S., W/O.HARIKUMAR, "RESAMISHY"
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
3. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/08/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 24305 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a person who participated in the State
eligibility test conducted this year. The petitioner did not come out
successful in the test. The petitioner is challenging the test itself in
this writ petition, on the ground that the negative marks for wrong
answers were given during valuation which is improper. According to
the petitioner, in other similar examinations, negative marks are not
given. The petitioner also raises a contention that during former
years, the scheme was approved by the Government as evidenced by
Exts.P4 and P6, whereas, as is clear from Ext. P7, the prospectus was
not approved by the Government. The petitioner therefore seeks the
following reliefs:
“a) Call for the records connected with the case.
b) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order
quashing the applications of negative mark system in the State
Eligibility Test Examination 2010.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondents to restore 123 marks
scored by the petitioner in SET Exam-2010 and declare the
petitioner passed in the examination.
d) declare that the petitioner is entitled to apply for the post of
Plus two lecturer examination called for by the Public Service
Commission and to appear in the Plus two Lecturer
examination/interview.”
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd
respondent.
3. The petitioner is bound to fail in this writ petition for more
than one reason. The first is that at the time of obtaining the
prospectus for the examination, the petitioner was very much aware
W.P.C. No. 24305/10 -: 2 :-
that for the examination, negative marks would be given for wrong
answers. Knowing fully well about the negative marks, the petitioner
wrote the test and only after publication of results, the petitioner has
challenged the negative marks after finding that the petitioner did not
succeed in the test. After having written the test in accordance with
the prospectus knowing fully well that there would be negative marks
for wrong answers, the petitioner cannot, thereafter, turn around
and challenge the test itself, which is against the settled law.
Secondly, there is no constitutional or statutory prohibition in
awarding negative marks for wrong answers in any written test.
Whether negative mark should be awarded for wrong answers is a
policy decision to be taken by the authorities who conduct the test.
This Court cannot say that the same is invalid insofar as there is no
prohibition for the same anywhere. The petitioner’s contention that
for earlier years, prospectus was approved by the Government and
this year it was not, does not find favour with me. Earlier years also,
the approval was by a Government Order. This year also the
prospectus was approved by G.O (Rt) No. 427/10/Gl. Edn. dated
27/01/2010 and G.O. (Rt ) No. 587/10/Gl.Edn. Dated 6/2/2010, which
is made clear in Ext. P7. As such, there is no merit in the contention of
the petitioner that the prospectus was not approved by the
Government.
In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition
and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.