C.V. ANTONY Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a candidate applied for selection to the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in the 1st respondent Board, through the Public Service Commission (P.S.C.). He was invited for and attended a written test held on 10.12.2011, based on Ext.P2 'Admission Ticket' issued. But the P.S.C. had now issued Ext.P3 notification invalidating candidature of the petitioner stating the reason that, "signed against Register Number of another candidate." It is challenging Ext.P3 and seeking direction for inclusion of the petitioner in the Rank List, this Writ Petition is filed. According to the petitioner, when he appeared for the written test the Invigilator had shown a Register in which the petitioner was directed to put his signature. Even if any variation had occurred with respect to the space where the petitioner had put his signature, it is not of much consequence or determinative. Rejection of candidature on the basis of such an inconsequential reason, is assailed.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 & 4 the factum of application submitted by the petitioner and his attending the 'OMR Test' conducted on 10.12.2011 are conceded. The 'Hall Ticket' was down-loaded from the official website of P.S.C. and the instructions in attending 'OMR Test' was specifically mentioned in the Hall Ticket. The candidates were instructed to produce photo affixed identity proofs in original and also a self attested copy of such proof of identity. The Hall Ticket also specified about the category of identity proofs which will be accepted. Instruction was to enter the 'Register Number' on the copy of the identity proof. It was specified that the candidate should occupy the seat allotted, half an hour prior to commencement of the examination, for the purpose of verification of their Admission Ticket and identity. It was also instructed that the candidates on occupying their seats should sign the 'Attendance Register' before being supplied with the question booklet. According to respondents 3 & 4, "from the records available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner was absent for attending the OMR test." In support of such a contention the respondents have produced Ext.R3(b) which is the copy of the 'Attendance Register' pertaining to the centre where the examination was conducted. In the counter affidavit of respondents 3 & 4 it is further stated that, "from the materials available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner has not attended the examination". The averments are to the effect that, since the records available with the Commission specifically makes it clear that the petitioner was absent, the invalidation of the candidature of the petitioner is in order. The counter affidavit further says that, "an answer script of candidate who had not attended the examination as per records cannot be compelled to be valued by the Commission."

(3.) On a perusal of Ext.R3(b) it is evident that Register No. 108335 is Sri. Antony C.V., who is the petitioner. Register No. 108336 and 108337 are Sri. Antony M.P. and Sri. Antony T.J., respectively. Specific case of the petitioner is that he happened to put the signature in the 'Attendance Register' mistakenly against the column noted for Register No. 108337 allotted to Sri. Antony T.J. This version is evidently correct as mentioned in Ext.P3 notification issued by the Commission in which it is mentioned that the answer script of the petitioner was invalidated for the reason that he had signed against the Register Number of another candidate. Further, on a comparison of the signature of the petitioner in the Writ Petition with the signature contained in Ext. R3(b), the above fact is proved. But the stand taken by the Commission in the counter affidavit to the effect that, from the materials available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner has not attended the examination, is absolutely untrue. This is because of the fact that the Commission itself had conceded the fact that the petitioner had attended the OMR test. Proof of identity of the petitioner was available with the Commission. It is also evident from Ext.R3(a) copy of list of seating arrangements that candidate with Register No. 108337 had attended the examination. Copy of proof of identity which is retained should have contained the 'Register Number' of the petitioner. The OMR answer sheet also could have been identified as written by the petitioner. Therefore it is clear that from the available records the Commission was convinced that the petitioner had attended the OMR test. As mentioned in Ext.P3, invalidation of the candidature was only for the reason that the petitioner had put his signature in the Attendance Register against the name of another candidate. Any further improvement of the case attempted through the counter affidavit filed by the P.S.C. is to be rejected.