High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017: The impugned Tribu...
OP(KAT) Nos. 90 & 99 of 2017, High Court of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- Ashok Menon
- Judgment Date
- 2019-05-28
- Court Decision / Holding
- The impugned common order is set aside; OA Nos. 2378/2016 and 805/2016 on the file of the Tribunal are dismissed; the original petitions are allowed. No costs. The ranked list maintained by the PSC stands as per the existing key and standards.
- Final Disposition
- OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017: The impugned Tribunal order is set aside; OA Nos.2378/2016 and 805/2016 dismissed; original petitions allowed; no costs. The PSC’s original ranking remains in force; the petitioners are successful to that extent.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Respondents
- VIMAL C.A.
- CHANDANA S.
- STATE OF KERALA
- SHEENA I. NAIR
- ARUN KUMAR V.S.
- UMESH P.G.
- NAYANA P.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri G. RANJU MOHAN
- • Smt. M. SANTHI
- • Sri V.G. JAYAGOPAN
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri G. RANJU MOHAN
- • Smt. M. SANTHI
- • Sri V.G. JAYAGOPAN
- • Sri Aravindakumar Babu
- • Sr. Govt. Pleader
- • Sri Saijo Hassan
- • Sri Benoj C. Augustine
- • Sri Rafeeq V.K.
- • Sri Vishnu Bhuvanendran
- • Smt. Parvathy P.
- • Smt. Surya P.
- • Shaji
Case Synopsis & Summary
These OP(KAT) petitions challenge a Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) to revise the ranked list for recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer on the basis of an alternative answer key for a 2015 written test. The PSC contends that the final answer key should govern marks and that altering rankings would undermine the integrity of the examination process; it also questions non-joinder and seeks to preserve the existing ranked list and caution against ad hoc revisions. The petitioners (the PSC and related officials) rely on regulatory standards and the significance of a stable selection process. The respondents (candidates such as Vimal C.A. and Chandana S., and others) argue that the standard for total soluble solids should be read in light of FSSAI regulations (65% W/W per Regulation 2.3.31) and that the tribunal’s direction to revise marks in light of expert opinion is warranted to reflect correct standards. The court considers expert opinion and Supreme Court guidance; it cites Ran Vijay Singh (2018) 2 SCC 357 for the framework on re-evaluation and presumption of key correctness, and distinguishes Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690 as inapplicable here. Ultimately, the High Court sets aside the Tribunal’s common order, dismisses the OA cases, and allows the original PSC ranking to stand, with no costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Right to Information Act, 2016Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 Regulation No. 2.3.31
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Presumption of correctness of the key answers/default answer key
- Benefit to the examination authority in doubt
- Re-evaluation of answer sheets allowed only when statute permits and only in rare cases of material error
- Courts should generally refrain from re-evaluating academic matters unless statutory authority allows and the matter is exceptional
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The PSC contends that the correct evaluation standard is the one under the final answer key (68% W/W) as per regulatory standards, and that the tribunal lacked a basis to revise the ranked list. It relies on expert opinions and the Supreme Court guidance that re-evaluation should be allowed only when permitted by statute, and that the presumption should be in favor of the PSC when doubt exists. It also emphasizes non-joinder issues and the need to maintain integrity of the recruitment process.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue for accepting the 65% W/W standard under FSSAI Regulation 2011 (Regulation 2.3.31) as the correct parameter, contending that revised marks would raise their positions in the ranking. They underscore the absence of impleading all affected parties in earlier proceedings and request relief based on the corrected regulatory interpretation and fairness to candidates potentially affected by the original ranking.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others | [(2018) 2 SCC 357] | Positive | The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Ran Vijay Singh are relied upon to frame the proper approach to re-evaluation and to presume the correctness of the key unless very clear errors are demonstrated, leaving the benefit to the examination authority in doubt. |
| Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others | [(2013) 4 SCC 690] | Distinguished | The judgment notes Rajesh Kumar is distinguishable on the facts, particularly regarding non-joinder of parties and the timing of challenges, thus not controlling the present case. |
Diagnostic Tool
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) Nos. 90 & 99 of 2017, High Court of Kerala 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 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1941**
**OP(KAT).No. 90 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-01-2017 IN O.A.NO.2378/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**
## **PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:**
**KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695004.**
**BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT:**
- **1 VIMAL.C.A, S/O ANILKUMAR C.P., DULCIMEN, NEAR MANGANTHARA, CALICUT-673015.**
- **2 CHANDANA S., D/O SURESH C, LAKSHMI, PERUMALPURAM, THIKKODI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673529.**
- **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**
## **ADDL. RESPONDENTS:**
- **4 SHEENA I. NAIR, AGED 32, D/O. S.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AYYAPPA SADANAM, MULLAKKERI, PANMANA, KOLLAM.**
- **5 ARUN KUMAR V.S., AGED 31, S/O. VASUDEVAN N., VAYALARIKATHU VEEDU, NETTA, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 541.**
**(ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.28.5.2019 IN I.A.NO.1462/2018)**
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
2
**R1 & R2 BY ADVS.SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN SMT.M.SANTHI SRI.V.G.JAYAGOPAN R3 BY SRI.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU, SR.GOVT.PLEADER R4 & R5 BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.BENOJ C. AUGUSTINE SRI.RAFEEK V.K. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.PARVATHY P. SMT.SURYA P. SHAJI**
**THIS OP(KAT) TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH OP(KAT).99/2017, ON 27.05.2019, THE COURT ON 28.05.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
3
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1941**
## **OP(KAT).No. 99 of 2017**
**AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-01-2017 IN O.A.NO.805/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**
## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:**
**1 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004.**
**2 THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULSI HILLS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS:**
- **1 UMESH P.G., S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR K.P, AGED 32 YEARS,THAPASYA HOUSE, CHENOLI P.O, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKKODE, KERALA - 673 525, MOB. 9446492455.**
**2 NAYANA P., D/O. SADANADAN P., AGED 27 YEARS, POOVATHUR MEETHAL HOUSE, MAKKADA P.O, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 611.**
**ADDL. RESPONDENTS:**
**3 SHEENA I. NAIR, AGED 32, D/O. S.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AYYAPPA SADANAM, MULLAKKERI, PANMANA, KOLLAM.**
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
4
**4**
**ARUN KUMAR V.S., AGED 31, S/O. VASUDEVAN N., VAYALARIKATHU VEEDU, NETTA, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 541.**
**(ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.28.5.2019 IN I.A.NO.1463/2018)**
**R1 & R2 BY ADVS.SRI.G. RANJU MOHAN SMT.M.SANTHI SRI.V.G. JAYAGOPAN R3 & R4 BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.BENOJ C. AUGUSTINE SRI.RAFEEK V.K. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.PARVATHY P. SMT.SURYA P. SHAJI**
**THIS OP(KAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH OP(KAT)NO.90/2017, ON 27.05.2019, THE COURT ON 28.05.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
5
## “CR”
## Judgment
## Chitambaresh, J.
1.One of the questions posed in the written test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) on 26.11.2015 for recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer and the optional answers were as follows:
“In a standard Fruit Jam, content of total soluble solids should not be less than:
(a) 68% W/W (b) 45% W/W (c) 65% W/W (d) 70% W/W.”
The correct answer going by the provisional answer key published on 1.12.2015 and the final answer key published on 28.1.2016 is '(a)' whereas the respondents would contend that the correct answer is '(c)' indicated above.
- 2.The respondents rely on the query dated 16.5.2016 and the answer dated 3.6.2016 elicited under the Right to Information Act, 2016 from the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India.
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
6
The answer refers to Regulation No.2.3.31 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 wherein standards of Jam are prescribed. The Regulation aforesaid indicates that the total soluble solids in a standard Fruit Jam should not be less than 65% W/W which is the biological requirement the product needs to conform. The respondents maintain that answer (c) of 65% W/W has been opted by them in the written test whereas the PSC has adopted answer (a) of 68% W/W as the correct one. The shortlist of eligible candidates was published on 30.3.2016 and the interview commenced on 22.6.2016 and the final ranked list published on 9.9.2016 by the PSC. It is thereafter did the respondents prefer the original applications before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) seeking to publish a revised ranked list. The respondents contend that they would go up in the ranked list if the correct answer (c) of 65% W/W is accepted for awarding marks to the candidates in the written test. The respondents however did not choose to implead any one in the ranked list at least in a representative capacity after paper publication though many in the ranked list would be prejudicially affected.
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
7
3.The Tribunal by common order dated 13.1.2017 impugned in these original petitions directed the PSC to take appropriate measures to effect changes in the ranked list accepting answer (c) as the correct one. The common order is challenged by the PSC in these two original petitions wherein respondents 1 and 2 ('respondents' for short) were the applicants before the Tribunal. The PSC in the meantime obtained an expert opinion from Dr.Mini Joseph, Head & Assistant Professor, Department of Home Science, Government College for Women, Thiruvananthapuram. The following is the extract of the report:
“The Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) & Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has clearly indicated that the total soluble solids (TSS) should not be less than 68%.
The Food Safety Standards Regulation however notes that the TSS should not be less than 65%.
Hence both are options that is (a) 68% W/W and (c) 65% W/W can be considered as acceptable as correct answer.”
The report of the expert was made available to court at the time of final hearing as directed by the common interim order dated 21.2.2018 in these original petitions in order to help us to
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
8
decipher the correct answer.
4.The Supreme Court after surveying the case law on the point has in this regard concluded in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2018) 2 SCC 357] as follows:
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions: They are:
30.1.If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2.If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.
30.3.The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4.The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5.In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
9
## candidate.” (emphasis supplied)
Thus the court should presume that answer (a) of 68% W/W furnished in the answer key is correct and proceed on that assumption and that the benefit should go to the PSC in the event of any doubt on that issue.
5.We note that answer (a) of 68% W/W provided in the answer key is not far off the mark particularly when the expert report opines that both 68% W/W and 65% W/W can be considered as acceptable and correct. A genuine doubt arises as regards the correctness of the answer key and the court in that event should give the benefit of doubt to the examination authority - PSC. It is submitted that about 90 candidates have already been advised on 3.10.2016 by the PSC even before the preferment of the original applications by the respondents before the Tribunal. None of those who are in the ranked list have been impleaded even as eo nomine parties in the original applications which are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The decision in Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2013) 4 SCC 690] is distinguishable inasmuch as the challenge therein was well before the appointment. A revision of
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
10
the ranked list without those included therein being impleaded as party respondents at least in a representative capacity is impermissible in law. The Tribunal ought to have presumed the correctness of the answer key and should have extended the benefit of doubt to the PSC and dismissed the original applications for non-joinder as well.
- 6.The impugned common order is set aside and O.A.Nos.2378/2016 and 805/2016 on the file of the Tribunal are dismissed in the circumstances.
The original petitions are allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON, JUDGE
**Sha/270519**
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
11
## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 90/2017**
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OA 2378 OF 2016 WITH ANNEXURES.**
**EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT)NO.8 OF 2017 DATED 2.3.2017.**
**EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 2378 OF 2016.**
**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.IDSI(2) 8370/2016 GW DATED 19.10.2016. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.709/2016 DATED 28.10.2016.**
**EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE IN FSSAI REGULATIONS 2011**
**EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF STATUS REGARDING ADVISES ISSUED TO VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF CANDIDATES OBTAINED FROM PSC WEBSITE.**
**EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.06.2017 OBTAINED UNDER RTI FROM THE PETITIONERS.**
OP(KAT) Nos.90 & 99 of 2017
12
## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 99/2017**
## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A (EKM) NO. 805 OF 2016 WITH ANNEXURES**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 8 OF 2017.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO. 805 OF 2016 DATED 13/01/2017.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.12.2016. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.709/2016 DATED 28.10.2016 EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE IN FSSAI REGULATIONS 2011. EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF STATUS REGARDING ADVISES ISSUED TO VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF CANDIDATES OBTAINED FROM PSC WEBSITE. EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.06.2017 OBTAINED UNDER RTI FROM THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION AND REPLY.**