IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13990 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ USHAKUMARI S., T.C. 14/1205, "MANGALYA", NEAR WATER WORKS, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADVS.MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13990 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 22nd May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an applicant for appointment to the post of LD Typist in Various departments, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 letter dated 29.12.2007 sent by the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Thiruvananthapuram informing the petitioner that his application stands rejected for the reason that he does not possess the prescribed qualification in Computer Word Processing as on the last date stipulated in the notification. Ext.P8 letter was admittedly received by the petitioner in December, 2007/January, 2008. Nearly 17 months have passed thereafter. The ranked list for the post of LD Typist has been prepared and published. A large number of persons who were aggrieved by the rejection of their applications on grounds similar to the one set out in Ext.P8 had filed writ petitions in this Court, seeking redressal of their grievances. Some of them were also permitted to appear for the test. The petitioner did not however choose to challenge Ext.P8 for the past nearly 17 months. In my considered opinion, the challenge to Ext.P8 is highly belated. The petitioner who slept over his rights cannot at this distance of time challenge Ext.P8. In any case, if the challenge to WP(C).No.13990/2009 2 Ext.P8 is entertained at this belated stage, it will cause considerable difficulties to persons who are not on the party array. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS