Disposed

Dr.Vishnu Damodar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2022WP(C)/25624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, addressing a writ petition challenging the selection process for Assistant Professors, held it could not affirmatively decide on Answer Key errors due to factual complexity. The Court ordered the Petitioner to constitute an Expert Committee to verify the Answer Key and deferred the selection process until the Committee settles a report.

What did the court decide?

Constitution of an Expert Committee to examine the Answer Key; selection process deferred until the Committee's report is received and final order issued within one month.

Dr.Vishnu Damodar, Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 25624 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 DR.VISHNU DAMODAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.V.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'VYSAKHI', ERAVANNUR.P.O, NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673585

¶7

2 DR. SEETHA CHANDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS D/O. DR. U.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT M.P HOUSE, IRINGANNUR. P.O., KOZHIKODE., PIN – 673505

¶8

BY ADV R.SURENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001,

¶11

2 KERALA AYURVEDIC STUDIES & RESEARCH SOCIETY (KASRS), A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES' REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR., PIN – 676501

¶12

3 THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER TRAVANCORE-COCHIN LITERARY SCIENTIFIC & CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1955, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. , PIN – 695014

¶13

BY ADVS.
SMT.PARVATHY K – GP
JAWAHAR JOSE
DEEPU LAL MOHAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 25624/22

JUDGMENT

Among the various assertions of the petitioners – against the

¶19

process of selection carried on by the 2 nd respondent – Society,

¶20

for the purpose of appointment of Assistant Professors in two of their departments, is that the Answer Key to the Question Paper has several anomalies.

¶21

2 . The petitioners say that since the questions were ‘Objective Type’, answers were required to be recorded in the ‘Optical Mark Recognition’ (OMR) Sheet; and therefore, that when

¶22

the Answer Key contained errors with respect to certain questions, they have been subjected to unfair detriment, thus compromising the entire process. They additionally allege that the process is further vitiated because it does not provide for negative marks for

¶23

wrong answers, leading to candidates making ‘random’ and ‘wild’ guess.

¶24

3 . The petitioners thus pray that the process of selection -

¶25

undertaken by the 3 rd respondent – Centre for Management

¶26

Development, as entrusted by the 2 nd respondent for such purpose

¶27

WPC 25624/22

¶28

¶29

- be declared illegal and the latter directed to redo the process

¶30

. without any further delay

¶31

4 . The afore submissions of Sri.R.Surendran – learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner, were controverted by Sri.Jawahar Jose – learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, saying that, though the petitioners have made certain grave allegations, they do not appear to be true; but that his client does not intend to stick on to technicalities and has decided to constitute an Expert Committee of eminent personalities attached to the Kerala University of Health Sciences, as also the Calicut University, to verify the Answer Key and enter into a valid opinion thereafter. He submitted that if the petitioners are so interested, they can also be offered an opportunity of being heard during such process.

¶33

5 . Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan – learned Standing Counsel

¶34

appearing for the 3 rd respondent, submitted that his client has completed the process of selection entrusted to them by the 2 nd respondent and that, to their information, there are no errors in

¶35

the Answer Key. He submitted that, however, if the 2 nd

¶36

¶37

WPC 25624/22

¶38

respondent is interested in verifying the same, he will not stand

¶39

in the way of appropriate orders being issued by this Court.

¶40

6 . When I assess and evaluate the afore rival submissions,

¶41

it is indubitable that there is a clear disputation as to whether there are errors in the Answer Key with respect to the written test conducted by the 3 rd respondent on behalf of the 2 nd respondent. This is not an issue that can be affirmatively decided by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it will require an evaluation of various factual and documentary inputs.

¶42

7 . I am, therefore, of the firm view that the suggestion of

¶43

Sri.Jawahar Jose – that his client will constitute a committee of

¶44

experts to examine the veracity of the Answer Key – is the best possible available to the petitioners at this stage.

¶45

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶46

a ) The 2 nd respondent will constitute an Expert Committee

¶47

comprising of persons of eminence from any University of their choice, preferably from the Kerala University of Health Sciences,

¶48

WPC 25624/22

¶49

¶50

which will then examine the Answer Key, after hearing the

¶51

petitioners with respect to their individual grievances, and settle a report.

¶52

b ) On the report of the Expert Committee being received by the 2 nd respondent, they will take an apposite decision with respect to the claims of the petitioners, adverting to their contentions in this Writ Petition and issue apposite proceedings not later than one month therefrom.

¶53

c ) Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and

¶54

the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, all action to continue with the selection processes and to appoint persons shall be deferred by the 2 nd respondent.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

RR

¶57

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 25624/22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25624/2022

¶62

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`Exhibit`	`P-1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED` `15-1-2020 PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION` `DATED 21-1-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD DATED 3-` `10-2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT` `TO THE FIRST PETITIONER WITH ROLL` `NO.22023`
`Exhibit`	`P-4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD DATED 3-` `10-2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT` `TO THE SECOND PETITIONER WITH ROLL` `NO.23046`
`Exhibit`	`P-5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST DATED 10-` `12-2020 PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18-` `12-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE` `SECOND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3-2-` `2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE` `SECOND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P-8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24-2-` `2021, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO` `THE FIRST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P-9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 20-6-` `2022 IN W.P (C) NO. 8428 OF 2021 OF HIGH` `COURT OF KERALA`
`Exhibit`	`P-10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER IN` `RESPECT OF RACHANASHAREERAM`
`Exhibit`	`P-11`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER KEY IN RESPECT` `OF RACHANASHAREERAM`
`Exhibit`	`P-12`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER IN` `RESPECT OF RASASHASTRA &` `BHAISHAJYAKALPANA`
`Exhibit`	`P-13`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER KEY IN RESPECT` `OF RASASHASTRA & BHAISHAJYAKALPANA`

Dr.Vishnu Damodar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Vishnu Damodar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.P.Jibu Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Sasidharan Vs Kerala Co. Operative Milk Marketing Federation

M.V. Sunny, Vs the State of Kerala

Joshin Joseph, Vs Higher Education Department

Naveen Manomohanan Vs Union of India

Sudarshanan. G. Vs Kiran. T.R.