IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32574 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- L. PAUL, S/O. LUKOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, KOLASSERIL VEEDU, ARAVILA, KAVANAD, KOLLAM-3. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), P.W.D, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOLLAM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.32574 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the 4th respondent, in response to a requisition made by the 1st respondent for appointment to the post of ferryman. Interview was held on 11/11/2009 and grievance of the petitioner is that such interview was held without giving intimation to him. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction that he should also be interviewed. 2. The learned Government Pleader obtained instructions in the matter from the 2nd respondent. It is stated that notice for interview and practical test containing rowing and swimming was despatched to all the candidates on 03/11/2009 under certificate of posting. A list of candidates to whom such intimation has been sent is also produced by the learned Government Pleader, which indicates that the petitioner's name is at Sl.No.13 of the list. The address shown in the list is same as that shown in the cause title of WP(C) No.32574/2009 -2- this writ petition. 3. On the materials produced, particularly having regard to the similarity of the address shown in the writ petition and the list produced by the learned Government Pleader, I have no reason to think that there was any motivated attempt on the part of the respondents to exclude the petitioner from the selection process. The petitioner also has no case that there was any specified method for despatching interview cards and that for that reason, despatch of intimation by certificate of posting is illegal. If so, the method of sending interview cards by certificate of posting cannot be faulted, and as the respondents have despatched the interview cards to all including the petitioner, even if it was not received by the petitioner, I cannot find fault with the respondents. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere, and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg