IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 25836 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- SINDHU.P.R, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT TREASURY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT : --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (DEPARTMENTAL TESTS) KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. =================== W.P(C).No.25836 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office, Thiruvananthapuram applied for appearing for the Departmental Test held on 5.11.2007 by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The application was rejected by Ext.P1 memo dated 17.12.2007. The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application in W.P.(C)No.119 of 2008. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 3.6.2008, this court disposed of the Writ Petition along with other connected cases in the following terms: “In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following lines: (a) The Commission may consider whether the defects noted in the rejection memos issued in each one of the cases itself is condonable or curable, as the case may be. (b) If they are so curable and condonable, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners, to cure the same. ( c) If the Public Service Commission feels that the defects cannot be and should not be permitted to be cured or condoned, then it shall issue a notice to the applicant conveying its proposal to do so. Then the applicants will be entitled to submit his/her objections and if the Commission decides to affirm the proposal, it shall pass an order indicating its reasons for arriving at such a decision and WP(C) 25836/08 -: 2 :- communicate the same to the applicants. (d) The participation of the petitioners in the respective examination shall be treated as regular and valid subject to the decision to be taken by the Commission as aforementioned. (e) If the Commission finds that the defect involved in each one of the applications is curable and condonable, it should be condoned or allowed to be cured. (f) The results of the participation of each one of the applicants shall be declared and further consequential action taken, subject to the decision to be taken by the Commission as mentioned above.” Thereafter by Ext.P4 letter dated 14.8.2008, the Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission informed the petitioner that rejection of her application by Ext.P1 was in order. The petitioner has in this Writ Petition challenged Ext.P4 inter alia on the ground that it was passed without notice to and affording her an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 has been issued in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Commission has decided to cancel Ext.P4, give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and take a decision regarding the admissibility of her application in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. In the light of stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, this Writ Petition is closed leaving open to the petitioner's WP(C) 25836/08 -: 3 :- contention and reserving liberty with her to challenge the order to be passed by the Commission in other appropriate proceedings if she is aggrieved thereby. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 26/9