Aravindakshan P.P v Kerala Public Service Commission & Director, Department of Kerala Collegiate Education, Government of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938 **OP(KAT).No. 105 of 2016 (Z) ----------------------------** AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA [EKM] NO. 931/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18-07-2016 PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT : ------------------------ ARAVINDAKSHAN P.P AGED 44, S/O. CHEKKAYI, PAROLLAPARAMBATH, KOVUKKUNNU, MOKERI P.O., KAKKATTIL (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673 507. (MOB NO.9447030386.) BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.A.A.SHIBI SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION KPSC OFFICE, THULASI HILL, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 105 of 2016 (Z) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2016 IN OA(EKM) NO.931/2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P.(KAT) No. 105 of 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 31[st] day of August, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ramachandra Menon, J. The challenge is against the interim order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (EKM) No. 931 of 2016, whereby the outcome of the selection and interview to be conducted by the PSC has been just made 'subject to the result of O.A.', ordering O.A. to be posted along with connected cases and directing the respondent to file reply affidavit within one month. Grievance is for not having granted an absolute stay. 2. The petitioner was an aspirant to the post of Lecturer in Commerce, which was notified by the PSC as per the notification dated 30.11.2012, under category No. 592/12. In furtherance to the steps taken by the PSC to conduct a written examination, the petitioner was also given admit card and he participated in the examination held on 08.08.2014. According to the petitioner, the question paper consisted of 100 questions, out of which, 70 questions _O.P.(KAT) No. 105 of 2016_ : 2 : pertained to the relevant subject and 30 questions were from the field of General Knowledge. According to the petitioner, he performed the examination quite satisfactorily. But on a fine morning, he came across a news appeared in some leading dailies in Malayalam, that some manipulation had taken place. Pursuant to the this, representations were preferred by some of the candidates, who participated in the process of selection, raising objections in respect of the Answer key. Later, 22 questions (20 from the subject concerned and two questions from the General Knowledge) were deleted by the PSC. According to the petitioner, most of these questions were provided with correct answerers and they were answered correctly by the petitioner. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason to have deleted 22 questions, except 'eight' questions, which alone were bad/not correct, according to the petitioner. It is stated that 'two' questions deleted by the PSC in respect of 'General Knowledge', were the same questions asked by the PSC in respect of the 'Political Science' and these questions have been retained in respect of the Post where the subject concerned was Political Science. As there was no rationale for having deleted such questions in relation to the conduct of examination to the post in question, after publishing the final _O.P.(KAT) No. 105 of 2016_ : 3 : answer key, the petitioner submitted Annexrue A8 petition/representation before the Chairman of the PSC and thereafter approached the Tribunal with the following prayers: “i. To call for the records leading to Annexure A9 short list of post of lecturer in Commerce notified under Category No. 592/2012 and set aside the same. ii. Declare that the Annexure A9 short list published for the post notified under category No. 592/2012 after deleting 22 questions from the written test is arbitrary and illegal and issue consequential order to conduct fresh written test and finalise the selection of the post notified under Category No. 592/2012 within such time as this Hon'ble Tribunal fix as reasonable and just. iii. To call for the records relating to the written test examination conducted under Category No. 592/2012 and quash the process by issuing appropriate order or direction. iv. To declare that the shortlist published by the 1st respondent by deleting 22 questions from the written test is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 1[st] respondent to conduct fresh written test and finalize the selection of the post notified under Category No. 592/2012; And v. Pass such other order for direction that may be _O.P.(KAT) No. 105 of 2016_ : 4 : sought by the applicant during the pendency of the OA or such other final relief that may be reasonable. Interim relief sought for to stay all further proceedings. However, after considering the interim relief sought for, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 to the effect that further proceedings would be 'subject to the result of the O.A'. If the PSC is permitted to pursue further steps, it will adversely affect the rights and interest of the petitioner and hence the challenge. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and so also the learned standing counsel for the PSC. 4. The learned standing counsel for the PSC submits that, as per the prescribed procedure, once the examination is over, the questions and provisional answer keys will be published by the PSC in the web site, inviting objections from the general public and anybody is entitled to raise objections as to the correctness of the answer key. On publication of the provisional answer key, no objection was raised from the part of the petitioner at any point of time. At the same time, objections were raised from different corners and they were placed for consideration before the Committee constituted by the PSC in this regard, consisting of experts. Based on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, changes, if any, to be made by the PSC; _O.P.(KAT) No. 105 of 2016_ : 5 : which in fact was effected in the instant case as well. The questions which are not clear or vague; the questions where no correct answer is given; questions where multiple answers are possible because of the confusion or obscurity and such other relevant aspects; as considered by the Committee and recommended, were given effect to by the PSC and only the sustainable questions were let to remain; rounding the marks obtained by the candidates. It was accordingly, that Annexure A5 final answer key was published way back in February 2015 and it was based on the said answers, that the papers were valued and the shortlist was published on 07.11.2015. Annexure A5 list was also published in web site. Still, no objection or representation was ever raised by the petitioner, who according to the PSC was simply sitting on an 'arm chair' and as a revelation filed Ext. P8 representation that too; after expiry of one year and four months. It was thereafter that the petitioner chose to approach the Tribunal with the prayers as aforesaid. The learned counsel submits that, since Annexure A5 final answer key has not been challenged by the petitioner, he is not justified in challenging the shortlist alone. Still, the Tribunal granted relief making it clear that, further proceedings will be 'subject to finalization of O.A.' and as such, no interference is _O.P.(KAT) No. 105 of 2016_ : 6 : called for; submits the learned standing counsel for the PSC. The learned counsel further submits that reply statement in the O.A. will be filed immediately, as directed by the Tribunal. The said submission is recorded. 5. Since the issue is still pending before the Tribunal, we do not find it proper to express anything with regard to the merit. Interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Tribunal. sd/- **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge