W.P.(C) Nos.6711/2010-L & 8279/2010-H (Sheeja C., Mency Mathew & Sharja N. v. Kerala Public Service Commission)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932** ## **WP(C).No. 6711 of 2010(L)** **-------------------------------------PETITIONER(S):** - **------------------------** **1. SHEEJA C, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.C.VENU GOPALAN, CHIRAMBATHOOR VEEDU, VARAVOOR PO, VIA VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR PIN 680 585.** **2. MENCY MATHEW, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.K.A.MATHEW, KONIKKARA VEEDU, POTTOR PO., THRISSUR PIN 680 581.** **3. SHARJA N, AGED 25 YEARS,** **D/O.JAMALUDDIN, SHRAJA MANSIL, VELLIMON PO., KERALAPURAM ,KOLLAM -14, PIN 691 511.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.RANJITH, SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THRISSUR.** **3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOLLAM.** **R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8279 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.6711/2010 L** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **P2: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **P3: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 19/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 30/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P6: COPY OF THE MODIFIED FORM OF EXPERT OPINION DTD. 21/1/2010 TENDERED BY DR. C.G.RAJENDRA BABU.** - **P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.1/1/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE RANK HOLDERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.** - **P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P12: COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHILVARTHA 16/01/2010 AND 23/01/2010.** - **P13: COPY OF THE NEW ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 19/01/2010.** **Kss ..2/-** **...2....** **WPC.NO.6711/2010 L** - **P14: COPY OF THE NEW ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN DEEPIKA DAILY DTD. 21/01/2010.** - **P15: COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THOZHILVARTHA DTD. 27/02/2010.** - **P16: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY SMT.SHEENA.M. BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P17: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 2/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY SMT. SANGEETHA S.S. BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P18: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DD. 1/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY SRI. DEEPA DHAMODHARAN K.V. BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P19: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY SMT. SHREEJA T.N. BEFORE THE COMMISSION.** - **P20: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18/03/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R1(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5/02/2010 IN WP(C) NO.3886/10.** **R1(B): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DSE III/55/08/PV DTD. 10/03/2010.** **R1(C): COPY OF THE JDUGMENT IN WP(C) NO.20353/09.** **R1(D): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.461 OF 2008.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.6711/2010-L & 8279/2010-H** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010.** ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions have been filed with identical prayers, viz. to direct the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh examination to the post of H.S.A. (Malayalam). 2. The petitioners were applicants to the post of H.S.A. (Malayalam). The written examination was held on 27.9.2008. The Public Service Commission published a notification dated 19.11.2009 enlisting the register numbers of the candidates who were found provisionally eligible to be called for interview for selection to the above post. Exts.P4 and P5 produced in W.P.(C) No.6711/2010 are the copies of the notifications. 3. The challenge is made on various grounds. According to the petitioners, they are having very high qualifications and were expecting high marks in the examination. Mainly their challenge is confined to the valuation of the answer papers. In para 5 of the writ petition, the main draw backs have been pointed out. Going by the contentions, what is projected is that in the absence of an answer key, the valuation was defective. Questions were more of descriptive nature. A specific instance wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 2 about question No.25 has also been pointed out. It is pointed out that in answer to the said question, what was written by the successful candidates may not be the correct one, in the light of the probable answers available in certain authoritative books on the subject. Lastly, it is pointed out that candidates having register numbers in a row have been included and candidates with register numbers in another row have been conspicuously left out in the list. What is highlighted in para 6 of the writ petition is another alleged illegality. It is pointed out that question Nos.13 to 20 were in relation to the subject “Teaching Methodology” and for evaluation of the answers touching the said subject, persons at least having Masters Degree in Education are required and according to the information of the petitioners, the evaluation was not done by persons having M.Ed. qualification. These alleged irregularities have been pointed out by various representations by the petitioners and other candidates, copies of which have been produced as Ext.P7 series. Ext.P6 is the copy of an expert opinion from one Dr. C.G. Rajendra Babu which is also relied upon by the petitioners. Finally, it is pointed out that articles have come in the newspapers about the illegal manner in which the valuation was conducted. Accordingly, the petitioners seek to quash the notifications Exts.P4 and P5 wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 3 and they further seek for a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh examination by cancelling the examination held on 27.9.2008. 4. The contentions of the petitioners have been answered by the Public Service Commission in their counter affidavit. It is pointed out that there was a similar challenge relating to the very same examination which was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3886/2010. The said writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.R1(a) judgment stating that a belated challenge cannot be entertained. It is further pointed out that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **U.P. Jal Nigam & another v. Jaswant Singh & another** {(2006) 11 SCC 464} **and A.P. Steel Rolling Will Ltd. v. State of Kerala** {(2007) 2 SCC 725}, the principle is well settled that the conduct of a party is relevant while considering the relief sought for in the writ petition. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Ajayan v. State of Kerala** (2006 (3) KLT 854), **State of Kerala v. Thirumeni** (2007 (4) KLT 938) and **Satyadevan v. Kerala Public Service Commission** (2008 (1) KLT 289). 5. With regard to the method by which the valuation was done in this case, it is explained in para 4 that a centralised valuation camp was conducted at the office of the Public Service Commission, wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 4 Thiruvananthapuram for selection to the post of H.S.A. (Malayalam). The examiners under the supervision of a Chief Examiner were nominated by the Hon'ble Chairman after meticulous examination of their credentials and qualifications. The answer scripts valued by each examiner were diligently checked by the Chief Examiner to ensure that the marks awarded to the candidates were precise, leaving no room for any modification. The panel of valuation camp in the instant case consisted of Readers, Retired Professors, Selection Grade Lecturers and Senior Grade Lecturers. The valuation of answer scripts conducted by the Commission is done by strictly following the due procedure and in a flawless manner. The answer scripts bearing false numbers and not register numbers are transferred from the Examinations Result wing of the Commission for valuation. The answer scripts are shuffled and false numbers are affixed on them. The register numbers of the candidates are not revealed to the examiners. It is therefore contended that the allegations of the petitioners that some of the candidates with register numbers falling within a near range have been arbitrarily given better marks, are absolutely incorrect in the light of the above method adopted. Ext.R1(b) is one of the replies given by the Commission in the matter. wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 5 6. With regard to the allegation regarding valuation with respect to the Teaching Methodology is concerned, it is explained that from the question papers it can be seen that out of 100 marks only around 12 marks, i.e. 4 questions carrying 3 marks each (Question Nos.15, 16, 19 and 20) have been allotted to Teaching Methodology. It is pointed out that the questions are not confined merely to the syllabus for B.Ed. students and hence the same could easily be valued by a Malayalam Lecturer of an Arts and Science College. It is also explained that the Commission has, through its experts provided the model answers before hand to the examiners and this would be sufficient and necessary guidance to the examiners concerned. Finally, it is pointed out that the valuation was done by Readers, Professors and Selection Grade Lecturers who possess excellent erudition and enriching experience in the field of teaching graduate and post graduate students of various prestigious institutions in Kerala and outside the State. Reliance is placed on Ext.R1(d) judgment of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court set aside the judgment of this Court in which revaluation was ordered. 7. Similar pleas have been raised in W.P.(C) No.8279/2010 also. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 6 relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission which is produced as Ext.R1(a), will not apply to the facts of this case, as therein what was challenged is the question papers itself and herein the challenge is not in respect of the question papers, but regarding the valuation of answer scripts, and therefore the petitioners could have challenged the matter only after the result of the examination is declared. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot conduct a roving enquiry in these matters. The jurisdiction of this Court is very limited in the light of the well settled principles. Herein, as far as the examinations conducted by the Commission is concerned, there is no provision for revaluation. The Apex Court in a series of judgments, has considered the question whether in the absence of a provision for revaluation, this Court could direct revaluation in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ext.R1(d) judgment is one of those Judgments. Therein, the Apex Court relied upon an earlier decision in **Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth** {(1984) 4 SCC 27). Ultimately it was held that in the absence of any rule providing for wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 7 revaluation of the answer book, no direction can be issued for revaluation and the High Court would not be justified in issuing a writ for revaluation of the answer book of a candidate. Hence the prayers of the petitioners for conducting a revaluation cannot be granted by this Court in these proceedings. 10. The next question is whether the allegations raised by the petitioners with regard to the method of valuation, that too pointing out certain instances, could be gone into by this Court. Evidently they are harping on certain aspects, which according to them, do not inspire any confidence in the process of valuation. As explained in the counter affidavit, the valuation was done by experienced persons who are working in various institutions and who are in the teaching faculty and that too in the category of Readers, Professors and Selection Grade Lecturers. True that the petitioners have produced Ext.P6 opinion by an expert in the field of competitive examinations. 11. It is well-known that the Public Service Commission has got a proper method to conduct the valuation by associating experts in the fields and that too by conducting valuation camps, etc. As explained in para 4 of the counter affidavit it can be seen that a centralised valuation camp was wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 8 conducted for the valuation of the answer papers of H.S.A. (Malayalam). Therefore, many of the allegations raised by the petitioners with regard to the mode of valuation and absence of answer keys, etc. cannot hold good. The contention with respect to the questions in respect of teaching methodology, is that the valuation was conducted by persons without having M.Ed. qualification. The said contention also cannot hold good. As explained by the Commission, it can be seen that the total questions were only four carrying three marks each and they have been valued by persons who are in the teaching faculty itself. That itself will allay the fear of the petitioners that valuation was not done properly. 12. Evidently, the petitioners had no complaint at the time when the written test was conducted. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to explain that they were expecting good results and therefore they could not have raised any complaint before the rank list was published. Therefore, I am not declining relief on the ground of delay. But still, the averments will have to be sufficient to provide any doubt against the method adopted or the valuation conducted by the Commission. The averments if they are taken in toto, will not be sufficient for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wpc 6711 & 8279 of 2010 9 especially in the light of the principles stated by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in such matters and that too, by directing revaluation wherein there is no provision for the same in the rules. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for directing the Commission to cancel the examination and to conduct a reexamination. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. ## **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ## **kav/**