Unreasonable Delay In Providing OMR Sheet Improper, Candidate Cannot Suffer For Administrative Lapses: Kerala High Court

Candidate's Right to OMR Sheet Cannot Be Denied Due to Unreasonable Administrative Delay: Kerala HC

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), affirming that a job candidate cannot be made to wait indefinitely for a copy of their OMR answer sheet due to administrative delays in finalizing results for other posts linked to a common test. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that a delay of over two and a half years was improper and violated the candidate's right to information.

Background of the Case

The matter originated from a writ petition filed by Junaid Shareef Kuttassery , a candidate for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Local Self Government Department. The KPSC conducted a common examination for this and eight other posts on October 21, 2021. The rank list for the post Mr. Kuttassery applied for was published on April 21, 2022.

Finding that his name was not on the list, Mr. Kuttassery promptly applied for a photocopy of his OMR answer sheet on April 25, 2022. Despite his application and subsequent RTI requests, the KPSC failed to provide the document for over two years, prompting him to approach the High Court.

A single-judge bench had previously allowed his petition, directing the KPSC to furnish the OMR sheet within ten days. The KPSC challenged this decision, leading to the present writ appeal.

Arguments from Both Sides

Kerala Public Service Commission (Appellant): The KPSC, represented by its Standing Counsel, argued that its actions were governed by Clause 350 of the KPSC Manual. This clause stipulates that copies of answer scripts from a common test can only be provided after the ranked lists for all posts under that test are published. Since the selection process for one of the nine organizations was still pending, the KPSC contended it was bound to withhold the OMR sheet to maintain the integrity of the entire selection process.

Junaid Shareef Kuttassery (Respondent): The respondent’s counsel argued that the delay was excessive and prejudicial. With the rank lists for eight out of nine organizations already published, there was no justifiable reason to withhold his OMR sheet. It was pointed out that the delay was attributed to "technical issues" with another category and that the rank list for his post was set to expire in April 2025, which would render any potential challenge by him infructuous. The counsel asserted that the non-supply of the OMR sheet violated the principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Court's Reasoning and Pivotal Observations

The Division Bench upheld the single judge's view, finding no merit in the KPSC's appeal. The court emphasized the unreasonable nature of the delay and its impact on the candidate.

The judgment noted:

"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... 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."

The Bench was critical of the indefinite delay, stating:

"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 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 court concluded that there was no valid correlation between the publication of results for other organizations and the respondent's right to access his own answer sheet once the result for his specific category was declared.

Final Decision

Finding no error in the single judge's order, the High Court dismissed the KPSC's writ appeal. The decision reaffirms that while procedural rules are important, they cannot be applied in a manner that leads to inordinate delays and defeats a candidate’s fundamental right to information and access to justice. The KPSC is now obligated to provide Mr. Kuttassery with a copy of his OMR sheet as directed.