G BIJU KUMAR Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these writ petitions essentially relate to the list prepared by the Public Service Commission for the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in the Kerala state Electricity Board pursuant to its notification dated 2-12-2003. Though the grounds of challenge are not identical, since the list published by the PSC, forming subject-matter of the challenge in these writ petitions is common, they have been heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is necessary to refer to the bare facts involved in both these writ petitions separately. I will refer to the facts in writ petition No. 12199/2006 in the first instance.

(2.) THE PSC invited applications for the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB as per Ext. P-1 notification dated 2-12-2003. The petitioner applied and was asked to participate in the written test. The written test was held on 5-3-2005. It consisted of 100 questions totaling 100 marks. Ext. P-3 is the question paper. The question paper along with the answer key was published in Mathrubhumi thozhil Vartha dated 12-3-2005 as per Ext. P-4. Subsequently by Ext. P-5 dated 15-4-2005, the PSC published the answer key of Ext. P-3 question paper. It is found from Ext. P-5 that question Nos. 12, 14, 27 and 98 were deleted and that no marks were awarded to those who answered these questions correctly. The petitioner contends that the cancellation of the aforementioned questions was arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. The petitioner is entitled to full marks for the aforementioned questions.

(3.) IT is the further contention of the petitioner that going by Ext. P-5 answer key, the answer in relation to question Nos. 23, 55, 86, 71 and 82 were incorrectly given. The petitioner had answered the aforementioned questions correctly but was given negative marks for these questions. The petitioner and other candidates made a joint petition before the Commission pointing out the aforementioned facts. Thereafter the Commission clarified that 4 out of 100 questions were cancelled without specifying the cancelled questions as such. The short list was published on 15-4-2006 as per Ext. P-24. The petitioner was not included in the short list. Hence this writ petition seeking a declaration that cancellation of question Nos. 12, 14, 27 and 98 is illegal, arbitrary and void and for a further declaration that the petitioner is entitled to marks for the answers which he has given to question Nos. 12, 14, 23, 27, 55, 71, 82, 86 and 98. Further consequential reliefs have also been sought for.