High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-11-23Original Petition dismissed; the Tribunal’s dec...

OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 (Z)

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Manjula Chellur
A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: Original Petition is dismissed; the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing OA 1817/2012 is upheld.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed; the Tribunal’s decision to delete the questioned items was upheld, and OA 1817/2012 was dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vishnu Namboodiri P
Lisha T.
Sijimol T.
Prajiitha V.V.
Sreevidya V.V.
Santhosh Kumar K.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Government of Kerala, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695004
Shyla Hameed, D/o M.Abdul Hameed, Shah-Villa, Pulippara P.O., Kadakkal, Chingeli, Kollam-691536 (Reg. No. S.100649)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jaju Babu
• M.U. Vijayalakshmi
• Sri Brijesh Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Girija Gopal, Special Government Pleader
• Smt. P.C. Sasidharan, SC, KPSC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala OP(KAT) challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s OA 1817/2012, filed by six candidates for Higher Secondary School Teacher posts (Economics) whose appointment process followed a mass cancellation of the 16.06.2002 examination due to a printing error. The Kerala Public Service Commission, in order to standardize the examination after a fault affecting one alpha code (Code D) across sets A–D, deleted questions 73–77 from all question booklets, including the bubbling OMR sheets. Petitioners contend that such a blanket deletion prejudices examinees and seek rectification so the exact questions answered could be identified through manual reading of responses; they rely on Gurunanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg to argue manual correction is possible where bubbling methods are not involved. The Commission argues that, given the bubbling process, it is not feasible to determine which candidate answered which question, and uniform deletion is the only practicable remedy to preserve fairness and prevent score manipulation. The Tribunal dismissed the OA, and the High Court upheld that decision, distinguishing Gurunanak Dev University on the ground that it involved manual correction, whereas the present case involves automatic bubbling that precludes precise rectification. Consequently, the court held that no rectification is possible, and the petition is dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenged the Commission’s uniform deletion of questions 73–77 across all booklets due to a printing error, arguing it prejudices examinees who could have been advantaged or disadvantaged by the deletion. They asserted that manual rectification could identify which questions were answered by candidates, especially for the alpha code D booklet, citing Gurunanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg (2005) 13 SCC 749 to support that answers can be read and corrected when bubbling is not involved. The petition sought rectification or restoration of the marked responses where feasible. They argued that if manual reading of OMR sheets is possible, the error could be cured without resorting to uniform deletion.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the bubbling OMR process makes it practically impossible to ascertain which answer corresponds to which question for each candidate, particularly for the D booklet, and that a uniform deletion is the only fair and consistent remedy to prevent systemic irregularities and maintain integrity of the selection. They distinguished the Gurunanak Dev University decision, arguing it does not apply to a bubbling-based OMR scenario and that rectification is not feasible in this context.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gurunanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg	2005 13 SCC 749	Distinguished	The court cited Gurunanak Dev University to discuss potential manual correction, but distinguished it due to the bubbling method used in this case, making rectification impractical.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 (Z) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/2ND AGRAHAYANA 1934** ## **OP(KAT).No. 3242 of 2012 (Z)** **---------------------------OA.1817/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **PETITIONERS/ APPLICATS :** **-------------------------------------** **1. VISHNU NAMBOODIRI P, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. ESWARAN NABOODIRI, PANNIYOTTILLAM, MPANDUR P.O. KANNUR - 670501.** **2. LISHA T., D/O. PADMANABAN T., ADWAITHAM, PAPPINISSERI AGED 37 YEARS, PAPPINISSERI P.O., NEAR WELFARE SCHOOL, KANNUR - 671314.** **3. SIJIMOL T., D/O. T. PRABHAKARAN, S.S.NILAYAM, CHAYYOTH, AGED 34 YEARS, CHAYOOTH P.O., NILESWAR (VIA), KASARGOD 671314.** **4. PRAJITHA V.V. D/O. A PRABHAKARAN, MADAPPALLI HOUSE, AGED 31 YEARS, VANGARA P.O., KANNUR - 670305.** **5. SREEVIDYA V.V. D/O.V.V. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 29 YEARS, SIVAPRABHA HOUSE, NEAR SREE RAA RAJESWARA TEMPLE, THALIPARAMBA, THALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR - 670141.** **6. SANTHOSH KUMAR K.V. S/O. V.V. KELU, AGED 35 YEARS, VALIYAVEEDU, MANDOOR P.O., KANNUR - 670501.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** **RESPONDENTS :** - **----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** ## **OP(KAT).No. 3242 of 2012 (Z)** **2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004. TEPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** **3. SMT. SHYLA HAMEED, D/O.M.ABDUL HAMEED, SHAH -VILLA, PULIPPARA P.O., KADAKKAL, CHINGELI, KOLLA - 691536 (REG. NO. S.100649)** **R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **OP(KAT).No. 3242 of 2012 (Z)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **P1: COPY OF OA NO. 1817/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DT 12/9/2012 IN OA NO. 1817/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. (KAT) No. 3242 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J.** Heard learned counsel Sri.Jaju Babu appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Public Service Commission. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein appeared in the examination conducted by 2[nd] respondent on 15.06.2012 for appointment to the posts of Higher Secondary School Teacher-Economics (Senior), Higher Secondary School Teacher-Economics (Junior) and Non-Vocational TeacherEconomics. As a matter of fact the present selection process was a second process on account of some mistake happened in the earlier examination conducted on 16.06.2002 which came to be cancelled. 3. The entire issue revolves round the decision of the Commission to delete five questions from 73 to 77 in order to take a uniform decision on account of the mistake in OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 -:2:- printing. So far as this mistake in one of the four sets of booklets with Alpha Code No.D. It is not in dispute that question No.73 was omitted and question No.77 was repeated twice. On account of this mistake so far as question booklet with Alpha Code No.D a problem would arise to ascertain which question was exactly answered by bubbling the Optical Mark Recognition (for short 'OMR') sheet. In that view of the matter, they followed uniform procedure to omit question Nos.73 to 77 to all candidates pertaining to question booklet Alpha Code Nos. A, B, C and D. 4. When learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice that on several occasion such mistake came to be cured, we directed the respondent Commission to explain whether there is any possibility of ascertaining who has answered which question number especially the candidates who got the question booklet with Alpha Code D, i.e. by manual method. As all the answers in the OMR sheet would be bubbled, it would be very difficult to know which candidate answered with serial number on account of bubbling is the process adopted. If it was written by hand, by reading the answers by manual process, the OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 -:3:- mistake could have been rectified. On account of the process of bubbling the answers being adopted, it is practically difficult to ascertain which question number was answered by the candidate. In that view of the matter, according to the Commission, it would not be possible even manually to rectify the mistake which has come into existence for no fault of either the Commission or candidates. In such situation the only possibility to be adopted is uniform method, therefore, the authority which conducted the entire process of selection decided to delete all the questions from Sl. Nos.73 to 77 wherein the mistake crept in so far as Alpha Code D of booklet. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on 2005 13 SCC 749 in the case of **Gurunanak Dev University** **v. Saumil Garg** especially with reference to paragraph 12, invited our attention that in a case almost like the case on hand their Lordships arrived at a conclusion as indicated in paragraph 12. After reading paragraph 12 we note that while manually correcting the answers it was possible because it was not bubbling method which was adopted. If one can read the answer OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 -:4:- and ascertain to which question that answer was given by the candidate, it would not be difficult to do so. The whole problem is on account of the process being a bubbling method adopted by the Commission, it is not possible to follow similar method as indicated at paragraph 12 of the said judgment. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the facts in the present case does not warrant any such rectification as indicated above. In that view of the matter, we are of the view, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application of the petitioners. Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed. **Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/23/11 OP(KAT) No. 3242 of 2012 -:5:-