IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938

WA. No. 816 of 2012 () IN WP(C).21949/2011

-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21949/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 10.02.2012

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
------------------------------------------------

1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KPSC,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,

KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,

KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------

1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695001.

2. ANU P.V., PARACKAL HOUSE,

CHEMBANTHOTTI P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670631.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN
R1 BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2016, ALONG

WITH WA. 989/2012, WA. 1144/2012, WPC. 18755/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA. No. 816 of 2012 ()

APPENDIX

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:-

A1:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P NO.15919-15950
OF 2011.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE
 ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J &
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
======================
W.A Nos.816/2012, 989 of 2012, 1144 of 2012
&
W.P(C) No.18755/2012
============================
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2016

JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J

The writ appeals are filed against the judgment dated 10.2.2012

by which, direction has been issued to the Kerala Public Service

Commission (KPSC) to provide answer sheets to the candidates. The

matter is now decided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Kerala Public Service Commission and Others v. State

Information commission and Another [2016 (1) KHC 533 (SC)].

The Apex Court after considering similar issue observed that KPSC

is bound to provide answer sheets and said information to the

candidates. It is held at paragraphs (9) and (10) as under:-

“9. In the present, the PSC has taken upon itself in

appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers
WA.816,989,1144/12 &
W.P(C).18755/12 -:2:-

and as such, the PSC and examiners stand in a principal-

agent relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a
Principal has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer
papers to the Examiners. Consequently, Examiners in the
position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer
papers as per the instructions given by the PSC. As a
result, a fiduciary relationship is established between the
PSC and the Examiners. Therefore, any information
shared between them is not liable to be disclosed.
Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in
this and we don't see any logical reason as to how this
will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to
point out that the disclosure of the identity of Examiners
is in the least interest of the general public and also any
attempt to reveal the examiners identity will give rise to
dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion
revealing examiner's identity will only lead to confusion
and public unrest. Hence, we are not inclined to agree
with the decision of the Kerala High Court with respect
to the second question.
10. In the present case the request of the
information seeker about the information of his answer
sheets and details of the interview marks can be and
should be provided to him. It is not something which a
WA.816,989,1144/12 &
W.P(C).18755/12 -:3:-

public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even

disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the
candidates will ensure that the candidates have been
given marks according to their performance in the exam.
This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive
environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing
for the competitive exams, but, the request of the
information seeker about the details of the person who
had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be
provided to the information seeker as the relationship
between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and
the Examiners is totally within the fiduciary relationship.
The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that
they will check the exam papers with utmost care,
honesty and impartially and, similarly, the Examiners
have faith that they will not be facing any unfortunate
consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow
disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the
unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the
examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further,
create situation where the potential candidates in the next
similar exam, especially in the same state or in the same
level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any
potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam.”
WA.816,989,1144/12 &
W.P(C).18755/12 -:4:-

2. Having regard to the observations made by the Supreme

Court nothing else survives to be considered in these matters. Hence,

we observe that KPSC shall comply with the direction in the

judgment if the answer sheets are available with them.

The appeals and the writ petition are dismissed.

Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN
CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
krj.22/3/16