IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 9160 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANITHA THANKACHI, D/O. VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, SINI NIVAS, KERALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLM. 3. THE POST MASTER, PERUMPUZHA POST OFFICE, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).9160/2010 ....................... Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT In response to a notification issued by the PSC for the post of Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank, Kollam, petitioner submitted an application. Selection process was initiated by the PSC and according to the petitioner, she did not get any intimation from the PSC requiring her to appear for verification of documents. It is stated that when she came to know that verification of documents was already scheduled by the PSC and that the candidates had appeared for it, she made enquiries and she came to know that the PSC has proceeded with the finalization of the rank list without giving intimation to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the PSC to give her an opportunity to produce the original documents to prove her eligibility for the post in question. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. According to the respondents, written test was held on 10.5.2008 W.P.(C).9160/10 2 and probability list was published on 9.12.2009. It is also stated that the said list was also notified in the official website of the PSC and a press release was issued in two prominent newspapers on 19.12.2009, requiring the candidates to appear on the designated dates. PSC has also stated that individual memos were duly despatched to the candidates on 14.12.2009 and 15.12.2009. According to the PSC, petitioner did not appear in response to the intimation and therefore, the rank list was finalized on 28.1.2010 excluding the petitioner. 3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit disputing the averments in the counter affidavit. 4. Evidently petitioner was a candidate and was also included in the probability list. Although it is the case of the petitioner that she did not receive intimation from the PSC , fact remains that the PSC despatched memos to the candidates and in response thereto, many of the candidates have appeared. On the materials available, particularly in the light of Ext.R1(b), I have no reason to think that the PSC would not have issued W.P.(C).9160/10 3 memos to the candidates nor do I find any reason to think that the PSC had excluded the petitioner while sending the memo. Moreover, as already held by this Court in K.P.S.C v. Aruna R. & Others. (1997 (1) KLJ 143), memos of the PSC need be send to the candidates only by ordinary post. Apart from this, fact remains that the probability list was published by the PSC on 9.12.2009. The said list was notified in the website of the PSC and a press release was also published in the Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhoomi dailies dated 9.12.2009. Therefore, if the petitioner were vigilant, she could have taken follow up action on the press release or the publication of the probability list. In such circumstances, having regard to the fact that the rank list was already finalized, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs