IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 13178 of 2006(R)
1. BINDU M.S.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :12/10/2006
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.13178 OF 2006 R
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th October, 2006
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner applied for the post of Sub Engineer
(Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. On
1-1-2005 she was called for written test which was held on
5-3-2005. The answer key was published in the P.S.C.
bulletin dated 15-4-2005. On the report of the experts,
the Commission decided to delete 4 questions before
valuation. Hence, the valuation was done for the remaining
96 questions and the answers in response to the same. The
questions deleted are question Nos. 48, 62, 64 and 77. The
short list was published on 31-3-2006. The petitioner’s
register number is not in the short list. At that stage,
she filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the
respondent-Commission to re-value her answer sheet and for
a direction to include her in the rank list for the post.
It is contended that the written test was held improperly
and illegally, and therefore, the valuation of the answer
papers is liable to be declared erroneous. It is pertinent
to note that the writ petition was filed only on 22-5-2006.
WPC No. 13178/06 -2-
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-
Commission, it is stated that the writ petition is belated
and on that ground alone it is liable to be dismissed. As
regards the merit of the contentions raised by the
petitioner, the respondent-Commission would submit that the
answer key was published in order to provide opportunity to
the candidates to bring to the notice of the Commission any
error in the question papers or the answer key, but the
petitioner did not avail that opportunity.
3. The expert committee was directed to go into the
correctness of the questions and the answers. This was
done by the Commission suo motu to ensure that errors are
detected before proceeding further. Based on the opinion
expressed by the expert, the Commission deleted four
questions. Consequently answers to those questions were
not valued. This writ petition has been filed after one
year from the date of publication of the answer key. Going
by the number of candidates to be included in the short
list based on the number of vacancies reported and the
marks secured by the candidates, the petitioner will not
find a place in the short list as she could secure only
lower marks than the marks secured by the candidate who was
WPC No. 13178/06 -3-
found eligible to be included in the short list as the last
person. As far as the supplementary list is concerned, the
same is the position of the petitioner who belongs to
Ezhava community. The last candidate whose register number
finds a place in the short list has secured 82 marks
whereas the marks secured by the petitioner in the written
test is 77.
4. The publication of the answer key, soon after the
written test, is a material fact which is not in dispute.
The petitioner kept silent at the relevant time. She was
sitting on the fence. She raised objections against the
legality of the written test only when her register number
did not find a place in the short list. Delay and lack of
vigilance is a matter going to the root of the issue since
belated complaints will affect the legitimate interest of
thousands of candidates. The respondent-Commission can
think of redoing things already done, if at all there is
substance in the complaint, if only such grievances are
brought to its notice promptly and at the earliest point of
time. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this writ petition
is liable to be dismissed. I do so.
WPC No. 13178/06 -4-
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/-