IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1290 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL SAMEEM, PARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.POOLAKKOI, VIA KAKKATTU, KOZHIKODE-673507. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,DISTRIT OFFICE,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, O/O.K.P.S.C,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP; BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 1290 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the respondents to immediately grant to the petitioner a chance for interview based on Ext.P5, on any date convenient to the first respondent, before the publication of the ranked list of LD Clerks in Kozhikode district. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Kozhikode district. He is a physically handicapped person and belongs to the Islam - Mappila community. His name was included in the short list Ext.P3, after being successful in the written test. The respondents sent an official communication to the petitioner intimating that he should appear for interview on 26.12.2008 at 8' clock in the PSC Regional Office, Civil Station, Kozhikode. Such an interview is being conducted for the physically handicapped candidates to assess their credentials. The same was dated 17.12.2008. But unfortunately, that was received by the petitioner only on 27.12.2008. This is clear from Ext.P5(a) postal cover. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not appear on the said date. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P6 representation seeking for a further chance for him to appear for the interview. wpc:1290 of 2009 2 3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is pointed out that there are several instances like the one herein and the Public Service Commission cannot be faulted for the delay in communication of the Memo to the candidates like the petitioner. It is pointed out that there are practical difficulties to arrange another interview. According to the PSC the conduct of interview afresh will delay the publication of the Rank list. 4. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner lost the chance to appear for the interview only because of the fact that he received the communication one day after the scheduled date. The circumstances were thus beyond his control. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that actually the interview is for verifying the credentials and the suitability of the candidates, cannot be said to be wrong. Hence, it is necessary in the interest of justice to grant a further opportunity to the petitioner to appear for the interview. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is prepared to attend the interview either at Kozhikode or at Thiruvananthapuram district. wpc:1290 of 2009 3 There will be a direction to the second respondent to intimate the petitioner, about the date and place of the interview sufficiently early. The communication shall be issued as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner's claim may be considered depending upon the out come of the interview. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps