SHAIJU Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner applied for the post of Work Assistant under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', in pursuance to the notification issued by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', inviting applications for about 1800 vacancies. Petitioner appeared in the written examination as per Ext.P1. The valuation was in the form of Optical Mark Reader for which Ext.P2 instruction was provided. The candidates have to bubble the relevant portions of the answer sheet of the OMR indicating the register number on the hall ticket besides writing the same in digits separately. The case of the petitioner is that even though he has done everything correctly and answered the questions, vide Ext.P3 notification his answer sheet was rejected. The petitioner protested it in the office of the respondent Commission and the answer script of the petitioner was valued by Optical Mark Reader and was awarded 50 marks and his name was published as Sl. No. 129. As the matter stood thus, the Commission published a list on 19.2.2010 deleting the petitioner's name from the list of successful candidates vide Ext.P5 notification. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner personally objected to Ext.P3 notification and the respondent had assured that in case the inclusion of name in Ext.P3 is incorrect, the computer would value the petitioner's answer sheet and if the entry of the petitioner's register number is correct in Ext.P3, the computer would not value his answer sheet. But, considering the objection raised by the petitioner, the answer script of the petitioner was valued and the petitioner found place at Sl. No. 129. Therefore, the respondent Commission is estopped from publishing Ext.P5 list deleting the petitioner's name from the rank list, particularly when his answer script has admittedly been valued. The next contention of the petitioner is that the violation of a technical rule which is not likely to result in violation of justice or affect public interest, particularly when his result has been published will not prejudice anybody as he admittedly holds 129th position in the rank list. The object of O.M.R. valuation is to facilitate the computer valuation in correct manner. In the instant case, the petitioner's answer scripts have been valued properly. Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions in favour of his case.

(3.) Tiju Thomas v. Principal, St. Stephen s College,1991 3 ILR(Ker) 832 , Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, 1986 AIR(SC) 1448 , A. Sudha v. University of Mysore, 1987 AIR(SC) 2305 , Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur, 1989 AIR(SC) 823 , Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana,2012 1 SCC 177 & Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, 1990 AIR(SC) 1075 .