IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33773 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJITHA.V,W/O.SUDEVAN,RODARIKATH VEEDU, MOONNANAKUZHY.P.O,VEMBAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-4. 2. REGIONAL OFFICER,PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE,KOZHIKODE-673 020. ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.33773 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to notification inviting applications, the petitioner applied to the PSC for selection to the post of Vocational Instructor in the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department of the Government of Kerala. Interview for selection was scheduled on 3.11.2010 by Ext.P2 at Calicut. Due to serious medical conditions arising from pregnancy, the petitioner has been hospitalized and she is presently an inpatient in a hospital at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner preferred a representation before the Chairman of the PSC for postponing the interview by 3 months so that the petitioner can take part in the interview after becoming medically fit to travel. By Ext.P5, the petitioner's interview was postponed to 10.11.2010 granting seven more days' time to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that presently the petitioner is not in a position to travel all the way to Kozhikode to take part in the interview and the PSC may be directed to postpone the interview of the petitioner at least three months. 2. On 9.11.2010 I passed the following order: “Post on 11.11.2010. The Standing Counsel shall get instructions as to whether it is possible for the Interview Board to interview the petitioner at Thiruvananthapuram within a week, in view of the situation stated in the writ petition.” w.p.c.33773/10 2 3. The learned standing counsel submits that although the PSC sympathises with the petitioner, they are unable to postpone the interview further, since the PSC receives such requests in every selection and even written test, and if they start a precedent, then the PSC may not be able to complete the selection process within a definite time. 4. After considering the rival contentions I find merit in the contention of the learned standing counsel for the PSC. This Court cannot direct the PSC to postpone the interview by three months especially in a selection which started as early as in 2005. The PSC has to finalise the rank list expeditiously. If the interview of the petitioner is to be postponed by three months, finalisation of the rank list will be further delayed. I do not think that for the sake of one candidate, I can pass an order which would adversely affect large number of other candidates. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.33773/10 3