Shinod K. v. The High Court of Kerala & ors (WA Nos. 383/2014 & 401/2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WA.No. 383 of 2014 () IN WP(C).23882/2013 ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23882/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-12-2013 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- SHINOD. K., S/O.RAMACHANDRA KURUP, ADVOCATE,RESIDING AT 'SRUTHI',P.O.PUTHOOR,VIA PANOOR,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,(RECRUITMENT & COMPUTERIZATION),HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. - 2. HONEY.M.VARGHESE, ADVOCATE,THRISSUR-680001. 3. MURALEEKRISHNAN.S, ADVOCATE,KANHANGAD,PIN-671315. 4. N.HARIKUMAR, ADVOCATE,NEYYATTINKARA,TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695121. 5. P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682016. 6. SASIKUMAR.P.S, ADVOCATE,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682016. 7. JOBIN SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE,ERATTUPETTA,PIN-686121. 8. MANOJ.A, S/O.K.E.RAJAN,MOOKAMBIKA,ATHAZHAKUNNU,KOTTALI, KANNUR,PIN-670005. - R2. SMT.HONEY M.VARGHESE, MELETH HOUSE, KOOTTALA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN 680 652. 3. SHRI.MURALEE KIRSHNA S., NAVACHETHANA, PARAKALAI P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN 671531. WA.383/14 4. SHRI.HARIKUMAR.N.,, SREEBHAVAN, CHULLIYOOR, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695124.. 5. SHRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, NARAYANEEM, 39/321, VADAKKEKOTTA, TRIPUNITHURA P.O., PIN 682301. 6. SHRI.SASIKUMAR P.S., SURESH BHAVAN, KUNNICODE P.O., KOLLAM. PIN 691508. 7. SHRI.JOBIN SEBASTIAN, MANGALATHIL HOUSE, NELOOR P.O., MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. (ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 1.12.2014 IN IA.1066/2014) R3,R5 & 7 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR R3,R5 & 7 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA R8 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.LIBIN STANLEY R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL R BY SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 401/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## APPENDIX IN WA.383/14. ## APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.2.2014 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT (RIGHT TO IFORMATION) RULES, 2006 IN RIA (APPEAL) NO.3/14. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ----------------------------------W.A.Nos.383 & 401 of 2014 ----------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2016 ## JUDGMENT ## Antony Dominic, J. 1. The captioned writ appeals are filed by the respective petitioners in W.P(C).Nos.23882/13 and 24480/13. 2.Facts of the case are that notification dated 20.12.2012 was issued by the first respondent inviting applications from practicing advocates satisfying the eligibility specified therein, for appointment to the 12 vacancies of District Judges in the direct recruitment quota. Large number of applications were received and the appellants herein were also applicants. In terms of the rules governing appointment as District & Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, selection shall be after holding a competitive examination consisting of a written examination and viva voci. Accordingly, written test was conducted on 8.7.2013 and only 6 candidates came out successful. Viva voci for the those candidates was conducted and on being WA.383/14 & 401/14 2 successful, they were selected and appointed with effect from 21.1.2014. It was in the mean while that these writ petitions were filed with prayer for revaluation of the answer sheets of the appellants. The writ petitions were heard and were dismissed by the learned single Judge. It is this common judgment, which is under challenge before us. - 3.We heard the counsel for the appellants and the standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and for the contesting party respondents. 4. The averments in paragraph 3 of W.P(C).23882/13, against the dismissal of which W.A.383/14 is filed, show that the writ petition was filed on the basis of an assertion made by the appellant/petitioner that revaluation was permitted in the case of some other candidates and that therefore, denial of such an opportunity to him was discriminatory. The fact that this assertion made by the appellant is factually erroneous is evident from the statement filed by the first respondent, where, the said assertion has been specifically denied. That the rules governing WA.383/14 & 401/14 3 appointment to the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 or the scheme of examinations framed by the High Court does not contain any enabling provision for a request for revaluation also is undisputed. Law is trite that in the absence of an enabling provision for revaluation, no candidate has a vested right to demand revaluation of his answer papers. Therefore, in the absence of any right recognized by any rule or regulation in that behalf, the appellants could not have asked for revaluation of their answer papers. 5.True the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. A.T.Chandrashekar [2007 KHC 4174] and Priyanka Pandey v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, M.P. [2007 KHC 7459] to contend that in these cases, the Apex Court has issued orders for revaluation even in the absence of any enabling provision. Having gone through these judgments, what we find is that in those cases, on the materials that were available, the court was satisfied about the irregularity in valuation and it was taking note of WA.383/14 & 401/14 4 that factual situation, the orders were passed. In so far as W.P(C).23882/13 is concerned, the factual assertion made by the appellants to substantiate their prayer for revaluation reads thus: “In this context it is submitted that certain promoted District Judges had a case with the direct recruits District Judges on issue of seniority and they have lost the case. This naturally would have created a feeling of ill will in their mind towards the direct recruits and it might naturally had a negative impact in the process of valuation. In the absence of a scheme of valuation there is every chance for having different approach for valuation by direct Recruits and promoted Judges. The petitioner strongly feels that the task of valuation in this case ought not to have been entrusted to District Judges, especially the promoted district Judges. There is also another aspect to be noted here. The District Judges, after retirement are reappointed against vacant posts until such vacant posts are filled up by eligible candidates. Here it is worth noting that th short listed candidates are below the number of vacancies notified. The serving District Judges could be a beneficiary of this shortfall in eligible recruits. Therefore the process of valuation is vitiated due to vested interests. Over and above what is stated above, the very process of engaging District Judges, for WA.383/14 & 401/14 5 the valuation of answer paper of the candidates for the District Judges posts itself is to certain extent inappropriate.” ## 6. Similarly, in W.P(C).24480/13, the relevant averments read thus: “As the petitioner remembers correct the first respondent had not provided to write the Roll Number of the candidates on B, C, Y and Z papers. While submitting the answer sheets to invigilators he has not allowed to tag all three answer sheets together. The same were also not kept by invigilator in identifying manner. The 'A' and 'X' answer sheets were OMR answer sheets and their will not be any handwriting of the candidates. It is only for the darkening the bubbles. Hence there is all chances to unidentify all answer sheets of the particular candidate and there is possibility of clubbing of B, C, Y and Z answer sheets of one candidate with OMR sheets of another candidates. It is respectfully submitted by the petitioner that there is very chance for losing actual marks for the candidates. Hence the examination itself is null and void and liable to be set aside.” - 7.Reading of the averments in W.P(C).23882/13 reveals that the appellant in W.A.383/14 is alleging malafide WA.383/14 & 401/14 6 on the part of the judicial officers who have evaluated the answer papers. From the nature of the allegations, if at all there is any truth in the allegations levelled, according to us, that would be a clear case of misconduct rendering the officers concerned for action departmentally. However, in so far these cases are concerned, the allegation is absolutely unsubstantiated and is a baseless one. At any rate, this Court cannot take cognizance of such allegations of malafides and bias in the absence of the officers against whom the same is made being arrayed as parties to the writ petitions. This principle of law is evident from the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.J.N.Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [AIR 1996 SC 326] and All India ' State Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India [(1997) 9 SCC 151]. - 8.The averments in W.P(C).24480/13 are also vague and totally unsubstantiated. These allegations are absolutely insufficient to invalidate a selection process. WA.383/14 & 401/14 7 9.However, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in order to put the process of selection above all doubts, it is necessary that this Court should order revaluation of the answer papers of the appellants. However, having regard to the facts of these cases, we are not inclined to agree to this request. This is all the more so in the light of the binding principle laid down by the Apex court in the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth [AIR 1984 SC 1543], where, it has been held thus: “. . . . . Further, it is in the public interest that the results of Public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.” For all these reasons, we are not satisfied that the appellants have made out any case for interference WA.383/14 & 401/14 8 and according to us, the learned single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petitions. Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge. kkb.