IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18553 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SYLVANIA C.R., W/O.JAMES P.O., PLACKAL HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE SRI.ELDO KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18553 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a candidate for selection to the post of High School Assistant (Mathematics) in Malayalam Medium in the General Education Department in Ernakulam District. As part of the selection process, the first respondent had conducted an objective type recruitment test on 10.1.2009. The petitioner has also participated in the said test. She was included in the supplementary list earmarked for the Latin Catholic candidates in the short list, for interview. The grievance of the petitioner is that the call letter for the interview did not reach her in time and thereby she was incapacitated from attending the interview. This Writ Petition has been filed in the said circumstances mainly seeking for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an interview of the petitioner for selection to the said post and to include the her in the rank list. 2. An affidavit has been filed in this Writ Petition by respondents 1 and 2. According to them, the interview for the said post was scheduled and conducted by 13.1.2010 to 15.1.2010 at the District and W.P.(C) NO.18553/2010 2 Regional offices of the P.S.C at Kakanad, Ernakulam. The schedule of the interview for selection to the said post was published by the Public Service Commission in its official website on 23.11.2009 and also in the P.S.C Bulletin(Ext.R1 (a)) on 1.1.2010. The interview memos of all the 196 candidates including the petitioner were despatched on 28.12.2009. Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) are the intimations published by the Public Service Commission in two different dailies. Ext.R1(b) is the despatch cum stamp account register. It would reveal that intimations with respect to the selection to the post of H.S.A (Mathematics) to 196 candidates were dispatched from the office of the respondents on 28.12.2009. It is the further contention of the respondents that it was specifically intimated in Exts.R1(c) and R1(e) that candidates who did not receive the interview memo by 11.1.2010 should contact the P.S.C District office, Ernakulam for taking necessary action. Admittedly, out of the 196 candidates, 183 candidates had attended the interview and thereafter, a rank list was drawn and published on 3.5.2010 by the P.S.C. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that she did not receive a call letter for interview and thereafter she had submitted a complaint to the respondents on 6.2.2010 and the same was received by the respondents on W.P.(C) NO.18553/2010 3 8.2.2010. Despite the receipt of the same, they did not take any action thereon. 4. The facts explained above would reveal that the interview for selection to the said post was scheduled to be conducted on 15.1.2010 and the candidates were intimated through Ext.R1(c) and R1 (e) to contact the concerned office for necessary action in case of non receipt of call letter by 11.1.2010. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the non- receipt of the interview letter much after the date prescribed by the P.S.C viz., 11.1.2010 and more so, much after the date of interview ie. on 15.1.2010. Ext.R1 (b) would reveal that interview memos were despatched in the names of 196 candidates including the petitioner pursuant to which, out of 196 candidates, 183 candidates attended the interview. Based on the test and interview the P.S.C has already finalised the rank list on 3.5.2010. In the circumstances, I am of the view that going by the decisions of this Court in W.A.No.2827/2009 and W.P.(C). No.3521/2010, I do not think that the petitioner can succeed in this Writ Petition. Exts.R1(a) to (f) would reveal the steps taken by the P.S.C for conducting the interview in a proper manner and petitioner who failed to attend the interview cannot claim for unsettling the result of the interview W.P.(C) NO.18553/2010 4 especially taking into account the fact that P.S.C has already published a rank list on 3.5.2010. For all these reasons, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18553/2010 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010