IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 969 of 2009(M)
1. KAVITHA.P.V, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NIRMAL. S
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :16/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.969 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 16th January,2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was an applicant to the post of
Assistant Editor in Archeology Department. The
application was called for on 15.12.2006. By Exhibit-P1
she was directed to produce all the documents to prove
the qualification and the eligibility. That was complied
with by the petitioner. By Exhibit-P2 letter she was
directed to submit copies of documents/certificates
showing experience of the petitioner and also the nature
of the job undertaken by the petitioner. She submitted
Exhibit-P3 reply along with certificates to the Secretary of
the Public Service Commission. Again by Exhibit-P4 she
was directed to produce an equivalency certificate from
the University to prove that the Diploma Certificate is
equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the gazette.
She submitted a reply to the communication on
14.10.2008. Exhibit-P5 is the said letter. Petitioner had
W.P ( C) No.969 of 2009
2
explained in Exhibit-P5 that since she is now working in
Palakkad, further communication relating to the selection
may be issued to her in the new address which has been
clearly stated in Exhibit-P5.
2. It appears that communication for participation
in the interview i.e., Exhibit-P6 was sent by the Commission
in the old address shown in the application and the same
reached her only on the date of interview i.e., on
19.12.2008 as redirected from the former address.
Immediately she filed Exhibit-P7 representation pointing
out the fact that communication regarding the interview
was issued to her in the old address and in view of the
delay she could not participate in the interview. It was also
prayed that she may be given an opportunity to participate
in the interview on a new date.
3. Since no action is taken in the matter, this writ
petition has been filed.
4. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for
the respondents also. It is pointed out that even though
Exhibit-P5 letter was received, it being a forwarding letter
W.P ( C) No.969 of 2009
3
regarding the submission of a copy of the Government
Order, the change of address mentioned in Exhibit-P5
could not be noticed and accordingly a memo was issued to
her in the address shown in the application. It is also
submitted that the petitioner was admitted for interview on
the basis of the Government Order submitted by other
candidates similar to the petitioner having identical
equivalency certificate.
5. In the light of the facts revealed above, it is clear
that there was a mistake in issuing the communication
regarding the interview in the old address and that
resulted in delaying the receipt of the communication by
her. Even though learned standing counsel for the
Commission pointed out that there are certain difficulties
for conducting a fresh interview as an outside member
should be incorporated etc, I am of the view that a
candidate who has completed all the formalities should not
be denied an opportunity merely because of the mistake
that has occurred in the matter. It being only a mistake
that has to be rectified by the respondent. Therefore the
W.P ( C) No.969 of 2009
4
writ petition is allowed.
There will be a direction to the respondent to conduct
an interview in respect of the petitioner by taking
appropriate action in the matter expeditiously.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.969 of 2009
5
W.P ( C) No.969 of 2009
6