Loading...

Lizzie Albert vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Lizzie Albert vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information