IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17163 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAMAR.S, S/O.SINNATHAMPI, NORTH DIVISION CHOKKANAD ESTATE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 612. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC,KPSC, SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS SC, KSEB SRI. K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 17163 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and applied for the post of Mazdoor in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He participated in the written test and interview was to be held on 15.12.2007. Apparently, interview card was sent by the PSC by ordinary post which is a permissible mode. It was left at the office of the Labour Club of the Chockanad Estate in Munnar. It seems that another person bearing the said name Sri.Ramar.S (Subramanian) working in the same area mistook the letter as addressed to him and went for the interview on 15.12.2007. He then realized that the letter was not addressed to him and that he could not participate in the interview. Apparently, the said person kept the letter in his possession. A fresh interview was held on 26.12.2007. According to the petitioner, he did not know of the same and therefore he could not W.P ( C) No. 17163 of 2008 2 participate in the interview. He submitted Exhibit P4 before the Chairman which was directed to be considered by this Court as per Exhibit P6 judgment. By Exhibit P7 order, petitioner’s request was rejected and the same is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The reason stated in Exhibit P7 is that the Commission had conducted a fresh test on 26.12.2007 for those persons who could not participate in the test which was conducted earlier. Commission had sent the intimation card in the address which was given by the applicant and in such circumstances, commission expressed its inability to conduct a fresh selection for the petitioner alone. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission. Mode of intimation resorted to by the PSC is permitted. At any rate, the petitioner also contends that intimation was received but due to his misfortune it was picked up by another person who bears the same name. Therefore, I cannot find any fault with the stand taken by the Public Service Commission. W.P ( C) No. 17163 of 2008 3 4. Moreover, the Commission had actually conducted a fresh test for those disabled on 15.12.2007 for some reasons. Learned standing counsel for the PSC submits that adequate publicity was given in the Electronic and Print Media regarding the fresh test to be held on 26.12.2007. According to the petitioner, he came to know of it only on 24.12.2007. May be the case is unfortunate But the question is whether this Court can find any fault in the stand taken by the PSC. Ultimately, mischief seem to have been perpetuated by another person who responded to the intimation sent by the Public Service Commission. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 17163 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No. 17163 of 2008 5