IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 198 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34963/2007 Dated 03/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO., MALAPPURAM-673 635. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 635. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH M., CHERUMUTHALIL VEEDU, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O., THEKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM-691 584. BY ADV. SRI. K.P.SATHEESAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.198 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition challenge the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 3.1.2008 directing to conduct interview for the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition. The writ petitioner was a candidate for selection to the post of Assistant Gr-II. She was called for to attend the interview for the same on 16.7.2007 at 2 p.m. Though the interview card is dated 22.6.2007, it was posted only on 9.7.2007 which reached the writ petitioner's post office on 12.7.2007. But the petitioner submits, it was delivered only in the afternoon of 18.7.2007. Therefore, she could not attend the interview. She went to the university personally on 20.7.2007 and submitted Ext.P2 representation pointing out her grievances. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge directed to interview her. W.A.NO.198/2008 . 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that by way of an interim relief, the final relief sought for in the writ petition has been allowed. It is pointed out that the University is not in any way responsible for the delay in the delivery of the interview card to her as evident from Ext.P1, which reached her post office on 12.7.2007. Further, the Interview Board, which interviewed the candidates on 16.7.2007, is not available now. It is also pointed out that the shortlist prepared pursuant to the interview held is under challenge in a batch of writ petitions, which are included in the hearing list of this Court. If those writ petitions are allowed, the entire exercise of selection will go. Further, if ultimately, the writ petition is allowed, this Court can pass an order to interview the writ petitioner. Therefore, the interim order passed is liable to be vacated, it is submitted. 3. We notice that the interview card was despatched from the University only on 9.7.2007 for an interview scheduled on 16.7.2007. It means reasonable time was not granted to the candidate to prepare and attend the interview. Even though there is no Rule or Regulation which says what will be the reasonable time to be given to the candidate to attend the W.A.NO.198/2008 . 3 interview, we have no doubt in our mind that the time given to the candidate in the case was not reasonable. If the interview card was sent sufficiently early, contingencies like delay from the part of the postman and other unforseen circumstances may not affect the candidate. If there is no interim order, practically, the writ petition will become infructuous. Therefore, we feel that the learned Single judge has rightly exercised the discretion in this matter. We are of the view that none of the contentions raised by the appellant is sufficient to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single judge. But, we clarify that the interview and her inclusion, if any, in the short list will be provisional and subject to the final orders in the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in Raghavan v. Public Service Commission ( 1985 KLT 880). We think, this is a matter which can be urged at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. W.A.NO.198/2008 . 4 cl