KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. T.L. SHAIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent-petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) According to the respondent-writ petitioner, he was an applicant to the post of Work Assistant in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation pursuant to the notification issued by the appellant--Commission on 12-3-2008. It is also not in dispute that he appeared for the written test (OMR test) with a register number allotted to him as 103195. According to the petitioner, he appeared for the written examination and the valuation has to be completed as per the instructions given in the OMR sheet. It is not at all disputed. He also admits that the candidate has to bubble the relevant portion of the answer sheet of the OMR indicating the register number in the hall ticket, besides writing the same in digits separately. According to him, he has done everything in accordance with the instructions. However, by Ext. P-3 notification his answer sheet was rejected. Therefore, he protested against the same. Hence again Commission published another list awarding 50% marks against his name at Serial No. 129. However, by Ext. P-5 again his name was deleted. Therefore, he has approached the Court.

(3.) According to the writ petitioner, in spite of following the instructions in strict compliance, the entire mistake was at the hands of the appellant-Commission. For no fault of him his name was removed as per Ext. P-5, therefore, he has sought for quashing Exts. P-3 and P-5 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had the opportunity of seeing the original answer scripts as done by us and at paragraph 6 of the judgment, this fact was brought on record. The appellant-Commission, apart from explaining in the counter filed by them, how the examination or the test was conducted and how A and B Parts were to be filled in by the candidate and what was the mistake committed by the present candidate, they also filed an additional counter-affidavit explaining with reference to the respondent-writ petitioner with Register No. 103195, what exactly was the mistake done.