IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
## **WA.No. 2375 of 2016 IN WPC. 28073/2016**
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28073/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER**
PRAVEEN V.P, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O VIJAYARAGHAVADEVAN, RESIDING AT MUTHIRAVILA, PARAVOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 301.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE
## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:**
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 691 001.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
## **WA.No. 2375 of 2016**
## APPENDIX
## **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES**
**ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSULTATIONS ON SITUATION IN ANDHRA RADESH, HEADED BY JUSTICE B.N. SRIKRISHNA.**
**ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.**
**ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE QUESTION PAPER OF U.P SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM MEDIUM)- EDUCATION HAVING QUESTION CODE NO, 171/2016 AND ALPHABET CODE 'A' CONDUCTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 17.12.2016.**
**ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ANSWER KEY PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 17.12.2016 HAVING QUESTION CODE NON 171/2016.**
## K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 2375 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2018
## JUDGMENT
## Surendra Mohan, J.
The writ petitioner is before us challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 28073 of 2016. The appellant was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of Assistants in the Universities in Kerala. He had responded to a Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC for short), Ext.P1. The method of appointment was direct recruitment from among candidates in the age group of 18 years and 36 years having the qualification of a Degree in any faculty from a recognized University or equivalent qualification. A written test was conducted on 24.5.2016. Thereafter an answer key was published on 26.5.2016, with an option given to the
W.A.2375/2016.
2
candidates to submit complaints, if any, with respect to the provisional answer key. After considering the objections, a final answer key was published on 10.6.2016 and thereafter a provisional list of 5000 candidates was prepared and final rank list was published on 10.8.2016.
2. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein as well as a few other persons approached this Court by filing writ petitions pointing out that the answers to some of the questions in the question paper for the written test were wrong, some of the questions that were deleted by the PSC were deleted arbitrarily and that, some of the questions were confusing, with multiple correct answers, going by the question paper.
3. The contentions of the candidates who had filed such writ petitions were refuted by the PSC by filing a counter affidavit. The stand of the PSC was that, in order to avoid delay in finalizing the complaints against the provisional answer key, an Expert Committee was constituted to examine the questions and answers. Accordingly, complaints with
W.A.2375/2016.
3
respect to 77 questions were considered on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee. Six questions were excluded from the answer key and certain changes were made with respect to the answers to some of the questions. Therefore, it was contended that the answers were finalized and some of the questions were deleted, following a proper and reasonable procedure. In view of the above, it was contended that no question had been arbitrarily removed.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that, there were no grounds to sustain the challenge of the writ petitioners. Disputes or differences of opinion regarding the correctness of the answers to some of the questions was bound to arise, especially in view of the fact that difference of opinion exist even among the experts. This court held that, there was no need for this Court to consider the correctness of the answers about which disputes are raised. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the
W.A.2375/2016.
4
dismissal of his writ petition.
5. According to Adv. M.V. Thamban, who appears for the appellant, different types of errors vitiated the evaluation that was conducted in the present case. Some of the questions were evaluated on the basis of wrong answers even though the correct answer was available among the options provided. Questions were deleted without valid reasons. Questions containing factual errors were not deleted and questions with no factual errors were deleted without any reason. The counsel points out that, in one question where the odd one was to be identified from among the options lake, river, sea and pool, in spite of the correct answer 'pool', the correct answer was taken to be 'river'. Another instance pointed out is that, in the question 'as to which was the first linguistic State in India', instead of the correct answer 'Andhra Pradesh', the correct answer applied for evaluation was 'none of the above'. It is contended that even the PSC has at other examinations conducted by it, accepted 'Andhra Pradesh' to be
W.A.2375/2016.
5
the correct answer to the very same question. With respect to the question as to what is the total length of NH49 (Kochi to Dhanushkodi), the contention is that as per Central Government Notification dated 5.3.2010, NH 49 has been renamed as NH85 (Kochi-Thondi). According to the counsel, had the above questions been correctly evaluated, the appellant would have obtained additional marks that would have improved his position in the rank list. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, is therefore attacked as erroneous and liable to be set aside in appeal.
6. We have heard Adv. P.C. Sasidharan, who appears for the respondents.
7. Though it may be true that, the correctness of some of the answers in the answer key used for evaluation of the answers may be the subject matter of dispute among experts, it is not possible to determine which of the views should be accepted as the correct one. The question to be examined in such cases is whether the PSC, which is also a
W.A.2375/2016.
6
constitutional body, had adopted a reasonable procedure for evaluation of the answers or not. In the present case, according to the Standing Counsel, the PSC had constituted an Expert Committee in the face of the complaints about the provisional answer key. The Expert Committee had considered the complaints and had recommended deletion of some of the answers and with respect to some of the questions, indicated the correct answer. What the counsel for the appellant wants us to undertake is to enter upon an examination as to whether the conclusions arrived at by the Expert Committee were correct or not. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, the decision of the Expert Committee has to be accepted as correct in such situations. It is also not for us to sit in appeal over the answers accepted by the Expert Committee to the questions as per the final answer key. Interference with the selection process is not called for, even if there is an infirmity in the answers adopted by the Expert Committee. The learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance
W.A.2375/2016.
7
on the judgment dated 28.3.2016 of another Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Surendra Mohan, J) was a party to point out that a challenge under similar circumstances had been repelled by this Court. We find on a perusal of the said judgment that, it has been so held.
8. Another decision on which reliance is placed on is Nowfal. H. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (ILR 2014 (3) Kerala 517) by another Division Bench of this Court. In the said decision also, this Court has cautioned against undertaking any such exercise of trying to determine the correctness of the answers adopted by the Expert Committee. Though the counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in Union of India v. R. Reddappa (1993 KHC 1248) to point out that, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere wherever arbitrariness is manifest in any procedure, we are not satisfied that the said decision has any application to the facts of this case. As already noticed above, the PSC in the present case has followed a proper and reasonable
W.A.2375/2016.
8
procedure of constituting an Expert Committee to consider the complaints received against the provisional answer key and to accept the answers adopted by them.
We find from a perusal of the judgment appealed against that the issues have been properly considered by the learned Single Judge. We find no infirmity therein warranting an interference with the same in appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
Sd/ANNIE JOHN JUDGE
sb
