The court confirmed the adequacy of notification procedures for interviews conducted by the public service commission, emphasizing that provisional participation does not confer legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

Respondents 2 and 3 in O.A.Nos.668 of 2022 and 476 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (‘the Tribunal’ for short), have filed these respective original petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal in those original applications.

2. The party respondents in these original petitions applied for the selection to the post of LP School Teacher (Malayalam Medium) conducted by the 1^st petitioner Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short), in response to Annexure A1 notification dated 31.12.2019. The written examination pursuant to Annexure A1 notification was held on 24.11.2020. The date of the interview with respect to the applicants in O.A.No.476 of 2022 was fixed on 17.12.2021 and 06.01.2022, respectively. The interview for the applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 was scheduled on 06.01.2022. According to the applicants, in their profile messages, the notification or notice regarding the interview was not sent or posted. Thus, the applicants did not know about the date of the interview, and hence they were not able to appear for the interview on the respective dates scheduled by the 1^st petitioner. According to the applicants in O.A.No.476 of 2022, the 1^st applicant knew about the interview only on 12.01.2022, and the 2^nd applicant knew about the interview only on 17.01.2022, when they opened the part of their profile described as Admission Ticket.

2.1. The applicant in O.A. No.668 of 2022 contended that she knew about the interview only on 18.01.2022 when she opened the part of the profile described as Admission Ticket. Thereafter, the applicants submitted several representations before the District Offices of KPSC concerned, requesting to provide them further opportunity to attend the interview. But those requests were rejected stating the reason that the requests for the adjournment of the date of the interview were submitted only after the date of the interview. Therefore, the applicants approached the Tribunal with the above mentioned O.As.

2.2. The applicants in O.A.No.476 of 2022 inter alia sought a direction to the KPSC and its Officials to permit them to attend the interview scheduled to be held on 28.03.2022 at the District Office of KPSC, Palakkad, and to consider the applicants for selection and inclusion in the ranked list, depending upon their merits. The applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 sought a direction to the petitioners to conduct the interview of the applicant for selection to the post for the Palakkad District at the Office of the 2^nd petitioner, either along with the applicants in O.A.No.476 of 2022 or otherwise and credit the marks awarded for the interview for selection to the said post.

3. In O.A.No.476 of 2022, the Tribunal passed an interim order on 25.03.2022 directing the 1^st petitioner to issue appropriate direction to the District Office of KPSC at Malappuram to permit the applicants therein to provisionally participate the interview scheduled to be held from 06.04.2022 onwards or on any other common date, which shall be informed in writing to the applicants. It was made clear in that order that the provisional participation allowed will not enure any right on the applicants. However, the interim relief sought by the applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 was rejected by the Tribunal through an interim order dated 20.04.2022. The said interim order was challenged by the applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 before this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.119 of 2022. By an interim direction, this Court permitted the applica