Anand A.T. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933** **WP(C).No. 26342 of 2011(P)** **---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **ANAND A.T, ELAVUMKUDY,TABORE P.O, POOTHAMKUTTY, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.NAVEEN.T SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001** **2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001** **3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001** - **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI R3 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C)NO.26342/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIMEN ANSWER BOOKLET OF THE P.S.C.** **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.6.2011 IN W.A NO. 1100/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.26342 of 2011-P. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4[th] October, 2011. ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is a candidate who had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (General Executive) in the Police Department, pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC for short). The petitioner participated in the preliminary examination conducted on the strength of a hall ticket issued to him bearing Registration No.123164. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the answer key published by the PSC the petitioner is entitled to get 57 marks in the preliminary examination. However, when the short list was published it was shown that his name was not included therein. 2. The petitioner while entering his register number in the OMR answer sheet, had not bubbled the last digit 2 **WP(C).No.26342/2011-P.** pertaining to his registration number. Therefore, his answer sheet was rejected for the reason that the register number was not correctly entered. The petitioner thereupon submitted a request as per Ext.P4 seeking the acceptance of his answer sheet. His request was rejected by the PSC by Ext.P5 communication. The petitioner challenges the said action of the PSC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the omission to bubble one digit while entering the register number of the petitioner was only a minor omission that could be condoned. My attention is drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in **Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar** (2011 (4) SCC 644). In the said case, an applicant to the post of Constable (Ministerial) had not disclosed the fact that he had been involved in a crime. The Supreme Court has held that minor discrepancies or omissions should not lead to denial of justice and therefore his application was not liable to be rejected for the said reason. It is to be noted that, in the present case the 3 **WP(C).No.26342/2011-P.** petitioner herein is a person aged 36 years and an applicant to the post of a Police Sub Inspector. By no stretch of imagination can a person like the petitioner in the present case be equated to a youth with whom the Supreme Court was concerned in the decision referred to above. 4. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on Ext.P3 judgment wherein failure to bubble the last digit of the roll number by a candidate in a departmental examination has been condoned by a Division Bench of this Court. A reading of the said judgment shows that there was only one examination and one valuation and the same is general and the result of valuation was disclosed to the petitioner therein. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench observed that the omission committed by the petitioner therein was minor in nature. In fact, it has been specifically noted by the Division Bench in Ext.P3 that the relief in the said case was granted in the very exceptional circumstances of the case and that the same need not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, the decision relied on by 4 **WP(C).No.26342/2011-P.** the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. Coming to the facts of the present case, in page 2 of Ext.P1 which contains the instructions issued by the PSC to the candidate, it has been specifically stipulated by clause 3 that the register number of the candidate would have to be entered in the answer sheet and that failure to comply with the said instruction would result in invalidation of the answer sheet. Further, in the second page of Ext.P2 which contains special instructions issued to candidates appearing for the Objective (O.M.R.) examination, in clause 11 it has been specifically provided that if a mistake is committed in indicating the register number of the candidate on an answer sheet, the same would be invalidated. Clause 15 further provides that an omission to bubble the alfa code or defective bubbling thereof would result in invalidation of the answer sheet. 6. A reading of the above clauses clearly shows that the candidate had been informed in advance that the **WP(C).No.26342/2011-P.** 5 consequences of an omission to indicate the register number by bubbling the alfa code or defective bubbling thereof would result in invalidation of the answer sheet. Therefore, the candidate was very well aware of the consequences of his omission. He cannot therefore complain that his answer sheet has been invalidated for not bubbling his register number correctly. 7. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the PSC, considering the large volume of answer sheets that are processed and valued by the PSC, it is not possible to dismiss omissions like the one committed by the petitioner herein as minor. Such reinduction of candidates would disrupt the smooth functioning of the examination system and would create problems in the conduct of the examinations. Acceptance of defectively numbered answer sheets would also lead to disputes among the candidates regarding the identity of the answer sheets, which would also create further problems. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner had been 6 **WP(C).No.26342/2011-P.** informed well in advance about the consequences of defective bubbling, the PSC cannot be found fault with for the action taken against him. No right of the petitioner has been violated. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned action. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge)** **Kvs/-**