IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25011 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.P.O.ANDREWS, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, CHRUCH ROAD, KATTOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 702. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 121. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R1 ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 25011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/9/2011 REQUIRING SMT.ANUPAMA T.P. TO APPEAR FOR THE INTERVIEW ON 16/9/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ PA to Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25011 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T This is a case where the petitioner's daughter-in-law was an applicant for one of the posts notified by the 2nd respondent for Lecturer in Bio Technology. It is pointed out that after the submission of the application, the daughter-in-law left the place to join her husband abroad. It is the case of the petitioner that an interview memo was received on 12.9.2011 directing the candidate to appear for an interview on 16.9.2011. It is the further case that there were only six applicants to whom memos have been issued to fill up five vacancies. Accordingly it is contended in the Writ Petition that the interview card was issued without granting sufficient time to the daughter-in-law of the petitioner to appear for the interview. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that altogether 46 applicants were there and 36 candidates appeared for the interview and the selection process has already been completed by selecting three persons. The W.P.(C)No.25011/11 -2- learned counsel submitted that even going by the averments in the Writ Petition it can be seen that the memo directing the daughter-in-law of the petitioner to appear for the interview was received on 12.9.2011. Therefore, it is not a case where only a short notice was given for the interview. 3. As the selection procedure including interview is already over, at this stage no direction can be given by this Court to the 2nd respondent to conduct interview for the daughter-in- law of the petitioner who is still with her husband abroad. Apart from that, the averment in the Writ Petition that only six applicants were there is also not correct. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as it is not filed by the candidate. For all these reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn