IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8177 of 2010(V)
1. LIZZIE ALBERT, D/O.ALBERT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 8177 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a candidate for the post of Legal
Assistant Grade -II in the Law Department of the
Government of Kerala. However, the petitioner could not
find a place in the short list prepared by the P.S.C., on the
basis of the mark obtained by him in the written test.
Petitioner claims to have performed well in the written test
and she submits that she ought to have been included in the
list by revaluing the answer script. In respect of the same
question, a learned Judge of this court passed the following
judgment relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.461/2008.
Common questions arise in these writ petitions. They
were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. The petitioners applied for appointment to the post
of Assistant/Auditor in Government Secretariat/Kerala Public
Service Commission/Local Fund Audit Department. The
petitioners were not selected. In these writ petitions, the
W.P.(C)No. 8177 of 2010
-2-
petitioners contend that as more than 50% of the candidates
selected and included in Ext.P3 short list published on
11.6.2009 are from Thiruvananthapuram District, it is evident
that there was foul play and malpractices in the valuation. On
this ground the petitioners pray for revaluation of the answer
scripts by an independent agency.
3. The issue raised in these writ petitions is in my
opinion covered against the petitioners by the decisions of the
Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Chairamn,
Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 and in
Civil Appeal No.461 of 2008 (Kerala Public Service Commission
& others V. Narayanan Kunchumbidukka & another). The Apex
Court has in the aforesaid decisions held that in the absence of
any provision for re-valuation of answer books in the relevant
rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right
whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his answer scripts.
The petitioners have not been able to point out any provision
entitling them to seek re-valuation. Further none of the
candidates included in the short list are on the party array even
in a representative capacity. In that view of the matter,
following the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, I
am persuaded to hold that the reliefs prayed for in these writ
petitions cannot be granted.
That decision squarely applies the facts of this case. I
fully agree with the said decision. In the above
circumstances following the said decision this writ petition
is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/
