Kerala High Court
Kannan S vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 31 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
2025:KER:81624
OP(KAT) No.421 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 421 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.1606 OF
2024 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
KANNAN S, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN KONGINISSERIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR
P O,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688557
BY ADVS.
SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
SHRI.RAPHAEL THEKKAN
SHRI.ABIN VARKEY KODIYATTU
SHRI.AJAY JUEL KURIAKOSE
SHRI.ABESH ALOSIOUS
SHRI.NIHAL MOHAMMED S.
SHRI.GLADWIN K.A.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM
PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
2 THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,THULASI HILLS, PATTOM
2
2025:KER:81624
OP(KAT) No.421 of 2025
PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA., PIN - 695004
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
2025:KER:81624
OP(KAT) No.421 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.(EKM) No.1606 of 2024 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam
(the 'Tribunal' in short) filed this original petition, invoking
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18.03.2025
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioner participated in the examination for selection to the post
of Clerk/Village Assistant in the Revenue Department. After the
examination, a provisional answer key was published on
05.10.2024, and candidates were given time to submit
complaints, if any, with regard to the provisional answer key.
After considering the complaints received, the PSC published the
final answer key on 28.10.2024. In Annexure A4 provisional
answer key, the answer for question number 62 was stated as
option C.M.S. Excel. But in Annexure A5 final answer key, the
answer was changed to option A, Oracle. According to the
2025:KER:81624
petitioner, the answer to question number 62 as per Annexure A5
is not correct. Oracle, MS Access and My SQL are Database
Management systems(DBMS), while MS Excel is a spreadsheet
package. So MS Excel is the odd one. Aggrieved by the answer to
question number 62 in Annexure A5, the petitioner submitted a
complaint before the 2nd respondent. But, no action is taken by
the 2nd respondent in Annexure A8 complaint. The act and
omission on the part of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary,
unreasonable and unjustified. Hence, the petitioner approached
the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following
reliefs:
"1. To call for the records leading to that part of Annexure
A5 final answer key published by 2nd respondent wherein
the answer for question No.62 in Annexure A3 question
paper is modified, and to quash the same.
2. To declare that answer for question No.62 in Annexure A3
question paper is option C
3. To direct the 2nd respondent to consider Annexure A8
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant in
a time-bound manner".
3. In the original application, a reply statement dated
2025:KER:81624
04.01.2025 was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent opposing the
reliefs sought by the petitioner.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P3 order
dated 18.03.2025, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs
5 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"5. The complaint of the applicant is against the final answer
key. According to the PSC there is no provision for
entertaining any complaint against the final answer key.
Moreover, the procedure adopted by the PSC has been
approved by the Hon'ble High Court in a series of judgments
including the judgment in Nowfal's case (cited supra). The
Hon'ble High Court observed that the PSC is inviting
questions and answer keys from experts which are furnished
to them in a sealed cover. One of the question papers along
with answer key is chosen by the PSC, by lots and given for
printing even without opening the sealed cover and after the
examination the answer key is published, inviting objections
and on receipt of objections, again an expert is consulted
and certain questions are deleted for no answers or for other
reasons and in that circumstances none of the candidates
are valued on the answers given to such questions. It is also
relevant to note that the judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.195 of
2015 the Hon'ble High Court found that whether the options
provided as answers to a particular question were correct or
2025:KER:81624
confusing, are matters on which the PSC has to take a
decision and it is not for either the KAT or the Hon'ble High
Court to sit in judgment over the correctness of the
questions. It is also relevant to note that in the order in
O.A.No.1920 of 2018, this Tribunal had relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Others
v. State of U.P. & Others [ (2018) 2 SCC 357], wherein
it was held that the court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that assumption in the
event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate.
In the above circumstances no relief can be granted to the
applicant as the scope of judicial review over the issue
arising in the case is very limited. Accordingly, the Original
Application is dismissed".
5. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner is now before
this Court with this original petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service
Commission ('KPSC' in short).
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the modification of the answer to question No.62 in the final
answer key published by the KPSC is illegal and arbitrary. The
modification of the answer to question No.62 was made without
2025:KER:81624
affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, the correct
answer to question No.62 was the one published in the provisional
answer key. The respondents in their previous question papers for
the selection to the post of Junior Assistants stated the correct
answer to a similar question. The learned counsel further
submitted that the petitioner could demonstrate that there is a
palpable error in the answer given by the respondents in the final
answer key.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
the KPSC would argue that after publication of the provisional
answer key, objections were called for, and on receipt of such
objections, the same were placed before an expert body consisting
of more than one expert. The opinion of the experts was placed
before the KPSC. Based on that expert opinion, the decision was
taken by the KPSC as to the correctness of the answer, and
accordingly, the final answer key has been published. By relying
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State
of U.P [(2018) 2 SCC 357] and that of this Court in State of
Kerala v. Fathima Seethi [2002 (3) KLT 871], Nowfal H v.
2025:KER:81624
KPSC, Tvm [2014 (3) KHC 349] and the judgment dated
23.11.2015 in O.P.(KAT)No.195 of 2015 the learned Standing
Counsel argued that an interference by the Court on a decision
taken by an expert body regarding the correct answer in a
competitive examination is unwarranted.
9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
10. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar
Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the
scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article
227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence,
both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth
and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such
a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of
interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to
ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the
2025:KER:81624
fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to
maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and
courts subordinate to the High Court.
11. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
2025:KER:81624
12. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
13. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
2025:KER:81624
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to
supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
15. The facts of the instant case have to be analysed
2025:KER:81624
bearing in mind the above legal principles regarding interference
on the decision of the Tribunal by exercising supervisory
jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner is that after
publication of the provisional answer key, on the basis of
objections received, the KPSC unilaterally changed the answer
key while publishing the final answer key. But the stand of the
KPSC is that such a change has been made based on the expert
opinion.
16. In Ran Vijay Singh [ (2018) 2 SCC 357] the Apex
Court held thus:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we
only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They
are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re - evaluation of an answer sheet
or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If
a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination
does not permit re - evaluation or scrutiny of an answer
sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may
permit re - evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated
very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning
or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has been
2025:KER:81624
committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re - evaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left
to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the examination authority rather than to the
candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not
directing re - evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the complete body
of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does
not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates
are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice
having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court
has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect
or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there
is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations.
This places the examination authorities in an unenviable
position where they are under scrutiny and not the
candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes
2025:KER:81624
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of
uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in
a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must
not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put
in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an
examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some
lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the
internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts
put in by the candidates who have successfully participated
in the examination and the examination authorities. The
present appeals are a classic example of the consequence
of such interference where there is no finality to the result
of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart
from the examination authorities even the candidates are
left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result
of the examination - whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the
Court; whether they will get admission in a college or
University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not.
This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's
advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in
confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger
impact of all this is that public interest suffers.
33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first
instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to
actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to
2025:KER:81624
seven questions. This was completely beyond his
jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several
occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible.
Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but
in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge,
by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending
four key answers for consideration by a one - man Expert
Committee". [Underline supplied]
17. This Court in Nowfal H [2014 (3) KHC 349] held
thus:
"11. What is a feature in the present case, which appears to
us to distinguish it from the cases which are decided, is the
procedure which is already put in place by the Public Service
Commission. The judgments of the Supreme Court relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered in a
situation where the University and in one case the employer,
conducted the examinations. There were complaints against
the same which reached the Courts. The Courts took the
views of the experts. It is relying on the decision of the
experts, which were found convincing to the Courts, that the
Courts granted relief. On the other hand, in these cases, as
we have already noticed, the procedure evolved by the
Commission pursuant to the direction of this Court was to
publish provisional key, invite objections, get them
scrutinised with the help of experts and act on the decision
of the experts. Therefore this is precisely what the Courts
have done in the decisions which were relied on by the
2025:KER:81624
learned counsel for the petitioners. What the petitioners
would seek is a review of even the decision of experts to
whom the matter is referred by the Commission under a
procedure which is evolved. That, we think, may involve the
Court, which exercises judicial review, to sit in judgment
over the experts and, more importantly, attract criticism
that it is doing a review as an Appellate Court will do. At this
juncture, it is very apposite to note that the petitioners do
not have any case that the persons to whom the matter was
referred by the Commission, seeking their opinion as
experts, are not experts or they were in any manner
actuated by malice. This means that the Commission took
care by first publishing the provisional key, inviting
objections, getting the objections scrutinised by the body of
experts who must be treated as having acted bona fide.
Further the result of that exercise, if it is sought to be
subjected to further scrutiny, for the purpose of the exercise
of judicial review, we would think that it may invite the
criticism that the said exercise would be an appellate power
exercised in disguise as judicial review. It is true that the
Tribunal took the view that the Commission already having
followed a procedure which is fair and which involved the
scrutiny of the objections by the Commission with reference
to experts, the matter did not require interference. The
Court or Tribunal doing judicial review should not reduce the
exercise of judicial review power to that of appellate review
and enter findings on facts for which it may not possess the
2025:KER:81624
expertise. If a view from among two views of the matter is
taken then if it defers to one of the views this Court does
not shun its jurisdiction. On the other hand it would be a
restrained exercise of its discretion which would still be in
exercise of its jurisdiction keeping it within the four walls of
its jurisdiction". [Underline supplied]
18. In Fathima Seethi [2002 (3) KLT 871] this Court held
thus:
"17 This being the principle enunciated by the Supreme
Court, it appears to us that much of the controversy raised
before us can easily be resolved by recourse to this
principle. While we appreciate the keen efforts taken by the
learned Single Judge in appointing experts to advise him,
and commend the pains taken by him in studying the
subjects and deciding the correctness of each disputed
answer, we are afraid that the jurisdictional limits of judicial
review were not observed. As already pointed out, it is not
the function of this Court to decide what should be the
correct answers to the multiple choice questions. This is not
a case where there is any mala fides or improper motives
alleged against the Commissioner. Nor is there any illegality
alleged. The Commissioner, bona fide, accepted the advice
tendered to him by the experts appointed by him. It is not
as if the credentials of the said experts is under challenge
or any mala fides are attributed to the experts themselves.
In a situation like this, it would have been preferable to
leave the matters where they lay. We see that appointing of
2025:KER:81624
further experts by the learned Single Judge produced no
better results and only added to the confusion which
prevailed". [Underline supplied]
19. In the judgment dated 23.11.2015 in O.P.(KAT)No. 195
of 2015 a Division Bench of this Court held thus:
"5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, we are not satisfied that, an interference
with the deletion of the questions by the PSC is called for.
Whether the options provided as answers to a particular
question were correct or confusing, are matters on which
the PSC has to take a decision. It is not for either the KAT
or this Court to sit in judgment over the correctness of the
questions. In the present case, we have also been taken
through the questions that were deleted. We find that, the
answer options provided were either wrong or confusing.
Therefore, we do not find any merits in the contentions put
forward by the petitioners". [Underline supplied]
20. While going through the principles laid down in the
aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the decision pertaining
to the answer to a question in a competitive examination is a
matter to be left to the prerogative of the experts in the field.
Unsettling answers in a competitive examination will cause
prejudice to a large number of candidates who attended the
2025:KER:81624
examination. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the
petitioner has not alleged any mala fides or improper motives
against the KPSC in his pleadings.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the discussions
made above, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has
not made out any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned
order of the Tribunal, which cannot be said as perverse or illegal.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
2025:KER:81624
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 421/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT TO APPLICANT DATED NIL.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT TO APPLICANT DATED NIL.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF QUESTION PAPER WITH ALPHA CODE
A FOR THE POST OF POST OF CLERK / VILLAGE
ASSISTANT IN THE REVENUE
DEPARTMENT(ERNAKULAM ,WAYANAD) DATED NIL.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL ANSWER KEY PUBLISHED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.10.2024.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF FINAL ANSWER KEY PUBLISHED BY
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2024.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AND DECISION OF 1ST
RESPONDENT IN THE SAME DATED NIL.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF SCERT COMPUTER
APPLICATION TEXT BOOK FOR PLUS ONE
HUMANITIES.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 15.11.2024.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF QUESTION PAPER WITH ALPHA CODE
A OF POST OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT DATED NIL.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF FINAL ANSWER KEY PUBLISHED BY
1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A. (EKM) NO
1606 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN O.A. (EKM) NO 1606 OF 2024
BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM DATED
04.01.2025.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 IN
O.A. (EKM) NO 1606 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM.
