IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9106 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SNEHA, AGED 21, W/O.BIMAL RAJ, LAKSHMI GOVINDAM, KARUPPAL PARAMBA, NELLIKKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 016. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA (CHENNAI ZONE), BASAVANGUDI P.O., BANGALORE 560004 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P & IR DEPARTMENT, HUZUR ROAD, P.B.NO.177, KOZHIKODE 673001. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.9106/2009-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The respondents published a notification as per Ext.P1, by which applications for appointment to the posts of Assistants were called for. The notification is published in the Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha dated 28/06/2008. It is made clear that the qualification required is degree and it is also mentioned that candidates who are appearing for the final year degree examination can also apply for the post. 2. The petitioner accordingly, submitted an application. She appeared for the written examination and was invited for the interview held on 14/03/2009. When she attended the interview, she was informed that she is not eligible for appointment in the post since she has not completed the graduation. The petitioner has completed the course now and the final year degree examination is scheduled to be held in the first week of April. It is therefore, contended by the petitioner that the stipulation now put forth by the respondents run contrary to the conditions in the notification published by them. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview. W.P.(C) No.9106/2009 -:2:- 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that what is intended by Ext.P1 is to give a chance to persons appearing for the final examination in the degree course as on the date of the notification. Herein the petitioner has filled the column of the application by stating that she is doing the final year degree course. The respondents cannot therefore wait for completion of the course, the publication of result and attainment of the successful degree, which goes against the terms of the notification Ext.P1. 4. The contention appears to be correct. Going by Ext.P1 notification an opportunity is given to students who are appearing for the final year degree examination. That means final examination should be proximate to the date of the notification. Herein, admittedly, the petitioner is yet to take the examination. Otherwise, there will not be any meaning for the particular clause contained in the notification. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the stand taken by the respondents is correct, they need not have given any permission to appear for the written examination and the application ought to have been rejected at the threshold itself. 6. Merely because the application was accepted at that point of time and she was allowed to write the written examination, that will not confer any right as such unless the petitioner satisfies the stipulations in the W.P.(C) No.9106/2009 -:3:- notification. The intention behind Ext.P1 is only to give chance for candidates who are appearing for the final examination at that point of time. It is not at all a stipulation to provide opportunity to person like the petitioner who was only undergoing the course as on that date and is expected to appear for the examination for the final year in April 2009. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot insist that she should be allowed to participate in the interview. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms