P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

Petitioner has appeared for the Kerala Judicial Service Examination, 2013 for selection as Munsiff/Magistrate pursuant to a notification published by the High Court of Kerala. He seeks, in this writ petition, directions to the High Court of Kerala to revalue the papers of all the candidates in the said examination and prepare a fresh merit list.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate who has applied for selection as Munsiff/Magistrate, pursuant to the notification published by the High Court of Kerala on 21.3.2013. The selection as per the notification, consisted of a preliminary examination, a main examination and viva voce. As per the terms of the notification, only candidates who pass the preliminary examination will be called for the main examination and only candidates who secure 40% marks for each of the four papers in the main examination will be called for viva voce. The petitioner did not secure 40% marks in paper IV of the main examination and consequently, he was not called for the viva voce. According to the petitioner, though he has answered all the questions in paper IV correctly, the answers written by him were not valued properly by the examiners. It is pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition that he should have been granted full marks or at least substantial marks for questions 24, 25 and 31, whereas he was given only 1 mark out of 5 for question No.24, 3 marks out of 5 for question No.25 and 3 out of 15 marks for question No.31. The petitioner also refers to question No.18 in paper IV. The case of the petitioner in relation to that question is that the said question consisted of two parts, of which, only one part was valued by the examiner concerned. It is also alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that when the valuation of the answer sheets was completed, sufficient number of candidates did not qualify for the viva voce examination and consequently at the instance of the High Court, the answer sheets of some of the candidates in the main examination were revalued and they were awarded 40% marks to make them eligible to be called for the viva voce. It is on the basis of the aforesaid averments, the petitioner seeks direction to revalue the answer sheets of all the candidates who appeared for the said examination.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the High Court in this matter. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that there was no error at all in the valuation of the answer sheets of the candidates appeared for the examination and that the selection process was not vitiated in any manner whatsoever. The averment in the writ petition that question Nos.24, 25 and 31 in paper IV of the main examination written by the petitioner have not been valued properly is denied in the counter affidavit. The stand taken in the counter affidavit in relation to the answers given by the petitioner is that he has been awarded the marks which he deserved. As regards question No.18, it is stated in the counter affidavit that during the centralised valuation, the answer sheets were distributed in such a way that the answers written by the candidates to a particular set of questions are valued by the same evaluator so as to avoid subjectivity in valuation. It is explained in the counter affidavit that certain questions had two parts and some evaluators assigned marks to both parts of the answer separately, while some others assigned aggregate marks for both parts together. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the evaluator who valued question No.18 of the petitioner had awarded aggregate marks and therefore, there is no irregularity or omission in the valuation of the answer written by the petitioner for question No.18. The allegation of the petitioner that after the completion of the valuation process, the evaluators were recalled and instructed to revalue the answer sheets of some of the candidates, is denied in the counter affidavit.

4. I have considered the rival submi