IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23201 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINDHU C.B. W/O. V.M.PRABHAKARAN VELIYAKATH HOUSE, MUPPATHADOM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADV. SMT.CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ SRI.S.SREEDUTT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE POST MASTER MUPPATHADOM POST OFFICE MUPPATHADOM, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, IHRDE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.23201/2009-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the rejection of the application forwarded by the petitioner for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servant, this writ petition is filed. The last date fixed for the receipt of the application, going by the notification was 07/03/2009. It is informed to the petitioner by Ext.P2 that the same was received only on 11/03/2009. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P3 postal endorsement to show that it was forwarded by ordinary post on 27/02/2009. 2. On getting instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that apart from the applications submitted by the petitioner, 3500 applications which were received after the last date have also been rejected. It is pointed out that this is not an isolated case also. Therefore, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded for a sympathetic consideration, I am not persuaded to accept the same. All the candidates whose applications have been rejected for various reasons cannot be allowed to participate in the selection process which will really interfere with the stipulations made in the notification. True that there may be some W.P.(C). No.23201/2009 -:2:- delay on the part of the postal authorities, for which the first respondent cannot be held responsible and no interference is called for. In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms