IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 18038 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PREETHA.P.S,W/O.DINESH.S,CHARUVILA THODIYIL,TRIKKOVILVATTOM,MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATOM,P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-04. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF PSC NOTIFICATION DT.30.12.2008 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF PSC ADMISSION TICKET EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF PSC SHORT LIST NOTIFICATION DT.14.12.2010 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT.26.5.2011 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF PSC REPLY DT.6.6.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXTS; EXT.R1(A)-TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER EXT.R1(B)-TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM EXT.R1(C)-TRUE COPY OF BULLETIN EXT.R1(D)-TRUE COPY OF DETAILS APPEARED IN THE WEB SITE // TRUE COPY // P.S TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18038 of 2011-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner's grievance is regarding the refusal of the Public Service Commission to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the interview for selection to the post of LPSA (Malayalam Medium) in Pathanamthitta district. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner submitted an application and appeared for the objective type valuation test on 12.9.2009. Ext.P2 is the copy of the admission ticket. In the short list published as per Ext.P3, the petitioner's name was included. It is the case of the petitioner that she was expecting call letter for participating in the interview but did not get it and after getting information that call letters were issued alrady to another candidate in January, 2011 the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation dated 26.5.2011. The stand taken thus is that the petitioner did not receive any call letter. The rank list has also not been published. Ext.P5 is the reply given to the petitioner rejecting her representation. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the wpc 18038/2011 2 Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, a candidate included in the short list, must be “called” for the interview. Therefore, the Commission has to see that the call letter reaches the candidate. The petitioner has taken a ground in Ground B that the call letters should have been sent only by registered post acknowledgment due. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the Commission in their counter affidavit, has produced Ext.R1(a) relevant extract of the despatch register, as evidence for sending call letters including to petitioner, no details regarding the names of candidates are available in the same. It is therefore submitted that no credence can be attached to the said document. With regard to the contention raised by the Commission that sufficient information have been given by publication in newspapers, P.S.C. Bulletin and also in the official website of the Commission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such alternate method adopted cannot help the stand of the Commission herein, since they have not proved to the hilt that call letter was sent to the petitioner. It is submitted that unless it is proved beyond doubt that call letter was sent, such contentions cannot be accepted. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submitted that the document Ext.R1(a) is the relevant page of the despatch register. The wpc 18038/2011 3 number assigned to the candidates will be mentioned at that stage in various registers. It is not as if all the detailed addresses will have to be mentioned in the registers, as the secrecy of the candidates also will have to be maintained. It is submitted that the despatch register shows that the letter was sent and the mode of issuing call letters is by ordinary post. It is submitted that it has been held by this Court in various judgments that the Commission need not send the memos by registered post acknowledgment due and that such conditions cannot be insisted to be followed by the Commission. It is further explained that Ext.R1(b) evidences the fact that information regarding the conduct of the interview was published in Malayala Manorama Daily as well as Desabhimani Daily. In Ext.R1(b) the dates of interview including the details of the register numbers of the candidates who are to be interviewed on the dates mentioned, have been given. It was also notified that the persons who have not received the call letters for interview before two days of the date of interview, will have to contact the district office of the Commission and the phone number has also been given there. 7. Ext.R1(c) is the publication in the P.S.C. Bulletin and Ext.R1(d) is the copy of the details provided in the website. It is therefore explained that all possible steps were taken by the Commission to see that the information wpc 18038/2011 4 regarding the interview reached the candidates. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18553/2010. 8. Shri S.A. Razzak, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Ext.R1(a) cannot help to resolve the issue. It is pointed out that unless the issuance of the call letter is proved by any cogent evidence, these documents cannot be accepted. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission Shri P.C. Sasidharan submitted that these documents are maintained in the official course of duties and therefore presumption is available. 10. In W.P.(C) No.18553/2010 an identical question was considered. Therein, the candidate received the memo late. In the affidavit filed by the Commission the similar publications in the website, the P.S.C. Bulletin as well as in two different dailies, have been relied upon. The relevant page of the despatch cum stamp account register was also produced. After analysing the various facts, this Court rejected the contention raised by the petitioner therein. It was held thus in para 4: “The facts explained above would reveal that the interview for selection to the said post was scheduled to be conducted on 15.1.2010 and the candidates were intimated through Ext.R1(c) and R1(e) to contact the concerned office for necessary action in case of non receipt of call letter by 11.1.2010. In this case, the grievance of wpc 18038/2011 5 the petitioner is with respect to the non receipt of the interview letter much after the date prescribed by the P.S.C. viz.11.1.2010 and more so, much after the date of interview i.e. On 15.1.2010. Ext.R1(b) would reveal that interview memos were despatched in the names of 196 candidates including the petitioner pursuant to which, out of 196 candidates, 183 candidates attended the interview. Based on the test and interview the P.S.C. has already finalised the rank list on 3.5.2010. In the circumstances, I am of the view that going by the decisions of this Court in W.A. No.2827/2009 and W.P.(C) No.3521/2010, I do not think that the petitioner can succeed in this Writ Petition. Exts.R1(a) to (f) would reveal the steps taken by the P.S.C. for conducting the interview in a proper manner and petitioner who failed to attend the interview cannot claim for unsettling the result of the interview especially taking into account the fact that P.S.C. has already published a rank list on3.5.2010. For all these reasons, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.” Of course, in that case the rank list was already published. But herein even though the rank list has not been published and the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently prayed for a direction to the Commission to conduct the interview for the petitioner alone, going by the facts pleaded in the counter affidavit filed in this case, it can be seen that the Commission has taken all steps to give information to the candidates. The relevant page of the despatch register shows the sending of call letters including to the wpc 18038/2011 6 petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be discarded as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Informations were given through Press, that too by publishing in two leading Dailies, the bulletin of the Commission and in the website. Even if the petitioner could not have ready access to the website for want of such facilities as pointed out, the other modes of publication was resorted to by the Commission and the candidates were directed to contact the district office also. 11. In fact, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submits that there is some delay in approaching to the office of the Commission also, after the interview is over. Whatever that be, going by the pleas raised, I do not find any reason to reject the contentions of the Commission in the light of the facts emerging and in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18553/2010. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/