1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the Public Service Commission in altering his rank from 39 to 43A in Ext. P1 rank list, that too based on the result of the rechecking of the answer papers done at his instance.

2. The ranked list in question is for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Arabic. The ranked list came into force on 3.12.2008. 54 candidates have been included in the ranked list. The petitioner was originally included as rank No. 39. In the writ petition, the complaint raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner's ranking has been changed without any justification and without any intimation to him. The writ petition was amended later to declare that the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 as Lecturers in Arabic is erroneous. They are rank Nos. 41 and 42 in the list. Therefore, the substantial contention raised by the petitioner is that the changing of the rank based on the result of the rechecking of the answer papers cannot be justified. It is the further case of the petitioner that before effecting the change, no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity to raise objection was also given.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission, the justification for effecting the change in the ranking has been explained. The petitioner had applied for rechecking of answer scripts on 23.1.2006. On rechecking, it was noticed that the petitioner had answered question No. 37 twice and one mark each was awarded two times. Therefore, the mistake was corrected and one mark was reduced from the petitioner's total marks and thus his rank was reassigned as 43A. An erratum notification was issued on 22.11.2006. Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure empowers the Commission to make such corrections in the ranked list. An erratum notification had been published in the official website of the Commission for public notice and therefore no separate intimation was given to the petitioner. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that a total number of 40 vacancies have been reported for the post and the petitioner was not advised as his turn did not arise as per the Rules of rotation.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit pointing out that the action of the Commission to reduce marks, alleged to be based on the rechecking, cannot be supported. He was never put to notice that if the marks are reduced, there will be change in his ranking. The petitioner also denies the averment that he had attempted question No. 37 twice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that the reduction of one mark on the alleged plea that the petitioner had attempted question No. 37 twice, is not supported by any material. It was never informed to the petitioner. He was not heard before effecting any change in the rank. It is submitted that the same has caused adverse civil consequences to him, as his chance to obtain the appointment itself has been defeated by the illegal action taken by the Commission. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the result of the rechecking is adverse to the candidate, that can only be ignored by the Commission and the original ranking was liable to be sustained. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P.M Unni Raja and others v. Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum, (ILR 1983 (2) Ker. 754), another decision of a learned Single Judge in Sajeev v. Public Service Commission (2008 (4) KLT 691 and that of the Apex Court in Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar and others in support of the arguments. It is submitted that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice in the action taken by the Commission and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be retained as rank No.39 and advice already made by the Commission should be revised.

6. Shri Alexander Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the