IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28611 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BEENA. M. BAVA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. RAJEEB.P.A, MELATHIL HOUSE, VALLANA, KURICHIMUTTAM.P.O., EDAYARANMULA (VIA), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 532. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE POST MASTER, CHENGANNUR POST OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. 5. THE POST MASTER, ALAPPUZHA POST OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMMED. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 28618/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.28611/08 & 28618/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner in WP(c).No.28618/2008, claims to be an applicant to the post of HSA(Malayalam) in the Education Department in Kollam District, who had submitted an application in response to Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, being an eligible candidate, she had purchased application No.94012776 from Urukunnu Post Office in Kollam District and sent the same by ordinary post from Krishnapuram Post Office, Kayamkulam on 19.6.2007. Ext.P5 is stated to be the application that has been sent. 2. As far as the petitioner in Wp(c).No.28611/2008 is concerned, it is stated that she had sent the application by ordinary post on 6.7.2007 for the same post. WP(c).No.28618/08 & Ors. 2 3. The last date for receipt of the application was 18.7.2007 and the written test is scheduled to take place on 27.9.2008. These writ petitions have been filed, complaining that, although the written test is scheduled to take place on 27.9.2008, the petitioners have not been issued halltickets. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to take part in the selection process and seeks an interim order for their participatiion in the written test. 4. In so far as the petitioner in WP(c).No.28618/2008 is concerned, the Standing Counsel for the respondent obtained instruction on telephone. It is stated that in Ext.P5 the petitioner's address is indicated as “Sreesadanam, Ottakkal(PO), Kollam District” and in the writ petition her address is shown as “Puthenkulangara Padeettathil, Krishnapuram PO, Kayamkulam.” Standing counsel submits that on verification it has been confirmed that application has not been received from neither of these addresses. It is WP(c).No.28618/08 & Ors. 3 also submitted that no application with the Bar code in Ext.P5 has been received. Therefore, it is stated that it is only because of the non-receipt of the application of the petitioner in WP(c).No.28618/2008, that hallticket was not issued. 5. In so far as the petitioner in WP(c).No.28611/2008 is concerned, even according to the petitioner, the application has been received in the office only on 20.7.2007 and it was so informed to her on enquiry. Although, the petitioner states that, she bonafide believes that the applicatiion was received in time, apart from the bonafide belief of the petitioner, there is nothing to indicate that the application has been received in time. According to the standing counsel, it is only on account of the belated receipt of the applicatiion, that hallticket was not issued. 6. Therefore, facts are clear that, in so far as the petitioner in WP(c).No.28618/2008 is concerned, her application was not received by the Public Service WP(c).No.28618/08 & Ors. 4 Commission and in so far as the petitioner in WP(c). No.28611/2008 is concerned, the application has been received belatedly. In these factual backgrounds, I do not find any reason for interference. More over, this view is also seen fortified by the decision reported in Binimil K.U V. KPSC (1997(2)KLJ 477). Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.28618/08 & Ors. 5