H. NOWFAL Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P.(KAT).Nos.1666 of 2013 is a leading case from among the two cases.

(2.) The petitioners in these cases were the applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. They are aggrieved by the final order passed by the Tribunal rejecting their applications which were filed feeling aggrieved by the action of the Public Service Commission deleting certain questions and also aggrieved by the incorrect nature of certain answers published in the answer key. The Public Service Commission conducted a test in connection with selection for the post of Assistant/Auditor in Government Secretariat/Kerala Public Service Commission/Advocate General's Office(Ernakulam)/ Local Fund Audit Department/Office of the Vigilance Tribunal (Thiruvananthapuram)/Special Judges and Enquiry Commissioner Office (Thrissur/Thiruvananthapuram). The Tribunal took the view that it is only when the invalidity of a decision is apparent on its forehead or perverse that the court may interfere. It was found that in this case plausible answers have been selected and that too based on the opinion of the experts. The Tribunal did not find merit in the contention of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that the Commission should not have deleted a few questions or modified the answers in respect of a few others. Their applications were accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners are before us.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the extent of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal is endowed with the authority in matters of this nature to ascertain whether the answers given in the answer key by the Public Service Commission is demonstrably wrong. It was well within the power of judicial review for the Tribunal to have gone into the said question but the Tribunal has not done so on a misconception that its jurisdiction is limited. He relied on the following case law in support of his contentions: Kanpur University Through Vice Chancellor and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others, 1983 4 SCC 309, Abhijit Sen and Others v. State of U.P and Others, 1984 2 SCC 319, Manish Ujwal and Others v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others, 2005 13 SCC 744, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others, 2005 13 SCC 749. He further draws support from the judgement in the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 2013 4 SCC 690.