Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE9H DAY OF OCTOBER201417TH ASWINA, 1936 OP(KAT).No.342 of 2014 (Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN OA2022014 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED2108-2014 PETITIONER :3RD APPLICANT IN THE O.A.:- ----------------------------------- BIJUKUMAR.P., S/O.PRANAYADASAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA, PALLICKALL.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 690 503. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.NAVEEN.T SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS1& 2 IN O.A. & APPLICANTS1 2 & 4, 5:- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004.
2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -695 004.
3. JAYACHANDRAN.P.K., S/O.KESHAVAN NAIR, PUTHOOR KIZHAKKETHIL, KOLLAKADAVU.P.O., KOLLAKADAVU, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 690 509. OP(KAT).No.342 of 2014 (Z) 4. RAKESH.R., S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PATHISSERIL, CHUNAKKARA SOUTH, CHARUMMOODU.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA - 690 505.
5. ANISH BABU, S/O.K.BABU, SANGEETH, CHEMMAKKAD.P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 603.
6. SHINE KUMAR.S., S/O.K.SIVASANKARAN, SHINE VILASAM, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE.P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 014. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0910-2014 ALONG WITH OP(KAT).No.345 of 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No.342 of 2014 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION O.A.202/2014 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE1t RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION BOOKLET WITH ALPHA CODE A. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BOOK NAMELY "BASICS OF CO-OPERATION" PUBLISHED BY DOCTOR MANOHARAN NAIR. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN O.A.202/2014 DTD.21/8/2014. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. True copy P.A to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(KAT)Nos.342 & 345 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
These O.Ps. are filed challenging the orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal rejecting O.A.Nos.202 of 2014 and 1709 of 2014.
2. The Public Service Commission had invited applications for the post of Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies in the Department of Co-operation. The written examination was held on 28/9/2013. The grievances of the petitioners that were highlighted in the Original Applications filed by them was that the questions set were in violation of Annexure-A6 guidelines.
3. It is pointed out that in Annexure-A6 the Public Service Commission had directed the questions or answers shall not be copied from any private publication, guide or other study materials published by any private publisher. It was also instructed that the question from reference books O.P.(KAT).Nos.342 & 345 of 2014 2 also shall not be re-produced as such in the question paper. It is pointed out that questions were copied from the publication of Dr.Manoharan Nair and that the order of the Tribunal itself shows that the specific references were made to two questions, which, according to the petitioner, were directly copied from the publication of Dr.Manoharan Nair. However, the Tribunal declined to invalidate written test as sought for. In these circumstances the O.P. is filed.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission.
5. First of all, the Original Applications are filed before the Tribunal by six candidates who appeared in the written test out of hundreds of candidates who had taken part in the written test that was held on 28/9/2013. Their prayer was to invalidate the written test and to conduct a fresh test. In the O.As. they had not impleaded any one of the other candidates, despite the fact that the order sought for by both, if granted, would have adversely affected the interest of such candidates. O.P.(KAT).Nos.342 & 345 of 2014 3 In our view, for that reason itself the O.As. could have been entertained by the Tribunal.
6. Even other wise we are not satisfied that any serious prejudice requiring the invalidation of the written test itself has been made out by the petitioners justifying interference either by the Tribunal or this Court. Pleadings before the Tribunal show that, following the complaints that were received by the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission had got an enquiry conducted and the report received revealed that, in the examination, candidates were not prejudiced justifying invalidation of the written test itself.
7. Apart from that, facts also show that, even the petitioners have no case that the PSC had contributed anything to the irregularity. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence these O.Ps.(KAT) are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj