Kerala High Court
The Kerala Public Service Commission ... vs Junaid Shareef Kuttassery on 9 June, 2025
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1258 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.44624 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (KPSC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - ., PIN - 695004
2 THE SECRETARY, KPSC,
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA -, PIN - 695004
3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA -, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JUNAID SHAREEF KUTTASSERY
AGED 33 YEARS
KUTTASSERY HOUSE, MAMPURAM PO MALAPPURAM -, PIN -
676505
BY SMT.ARCHITA BAIJU PANICKER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2025, THE COURT ON 09.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The present writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958 arises out of the judgment dated
20.03.2025 in W.P(C) No.44624 of 2024 whereby the claim of the
respondent asking for photocopy of the OMR answer sheet has
been allowed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a
candidate for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Local
Self Government Department, for which selection has been
conducted by the 1st appellant and thereafter rank list was
published on 21.04.2022. Since the name of the respondent did
not find place in the rank list, he filed an application on
25.04.2022 requesting for photocopy of the OMR answer sheet
immediately after the publication of the final rank list. Since the
OMR sheet was not provided to the respondent, he approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.44624 of 2024.
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
4. The learned Single Judge held that the Court does not
find any correlation with the publication of the result in respect of
the selection to some other organizations for which the common
test was conducted, in which the respondent was a candidate.
Once the test has been conducted, the KPSC should not feel any
hindrance in giving the photocopy of the OMR sheet to the
candidate. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with
a direction to the appellants to furnish the photocopy of the OMR
sheet of the respondent within ten days. Being aggrieved, the
appellants have filed the present writ appeal.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the selection was held not only for the vacancies
in the Local Self Government Department but also for other
organisations, and in respect of one of these organisations out of
nine organisations, the select list has not been published, and
therefore, supply of OMR sheet at this stage would render the
entire selection process vitiated. The learned Single Judge could
not have directed to furnish the OMR sheet, since as per Clause
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
350 of the KPSC Manual, copy of the answer scripts can be given
only after the publication of the entire ranked list. As per the note
appended below Clause 350, whenever a common written
test/OMR test with common candidates is conducted, the marks
awarded to the candidates included in the ranked list and mark of
OMR test relating to all candidates appeared for the test will be
published only after the publication of the entire ranked lists
(including NCA notifications) which will be finalised on the basis of
the common test. Learned Standing Counsel further contended
that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition
and directing furnishing of OMR sheet within ten days.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that out of nine
organisations, select list for eight organisations has already been
published, including for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in
the Local Self Government Department for which the respondent
appeared. The examination was held on 21.10.2021 whereas the
final rank list was published on 21.04.2022. Since the name of
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
the respondent did not find place in the rank list, he submitted an
application on 25.04.2022 requesting for photocopy of the OMR
answer sheet. Despite repeated requests and three separate RTI
applications, the respondent did not receive the OMR sheet. In
the RTI reply, it is mentioned that the delay is attributable due to
technical issues relating to category No.028/2021 which was part
of the same common test. It is also submitted that the rank list
for category No.125/2020 i.e. Assistant Engineer (Civil) is said to
expire in April, 2025 making the claim of the respondent virtually
infructuous. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
Single Judge, taking into account the fact that the non- supply of
OMR sheet within time and that too after huge delay would
amount to violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
which deals with right to freedom of speech and expression, which
includes right to information particularly concerning one's own
evaluation in public examination, directed furnishing of OMR sheet
of the respondent. Once the result of category No.125/2020 was
published on 21.04.2022, no reasonable cause exists to withhold
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
the OMR sheet. Normally a candidate must receive the OMR
sheets within 30 days. In the present case, there is a delay of 2½
years. The aforesaid delay creates huge problem for the
respondent to challenge or verify the correctness of the evaluation
which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. In
view of the aforesaid submissions, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge needs no interference and the writ appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Admittedly, the respondent has not challenged the
selection process and in fact he wants to know where he went
wrong and why his name was not included in the rank list. Even
though Clause 350 and the note appended below the said clause
in the KPSC Manual provided that the OMR sheet will be supplied
only after the process is finalised, some reasonable period is to be
adopted to supply the OMR sheets. It is improper on the part of
the appellants not to supply the OMR sheet even after a lapse of
2½ years. It is also not known as to when the rank list in the
2025:KER:39513
W.A No.1258 of 2025
category No.028 of 2021 would be finalised. In the absence of
finalisation of rank list, the respondent cannot be made to suffer
for no fault of his. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to
the conclusion that there is no correlation with the publication of
the result in respect of the selection to some other organisations
for which the common test was conducted, in which the
respondent was a candidate, and that there should not be any
hindrance in giving the photocopy of the OMR sheet to the
respondent. Accordingly, finding no merits in the case as well as
no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are
not inclined to entertain the writ appeal.
The writ appeal being bereft of merit and substance, is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
