Judgment :- The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the selection by interview for the post of Secretary (Law), Pondicherry by Notification dated 22.12.2001 by UPSC Advertisement No.24, Item No.19 Ref.No.F-1/42/2001 R.11 to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to include the petitioner's name for the said selection as per earlier order of this Court dated 12.7.2002 in W.P.No.24982 of 2002 as well as the petitioner's representation dated 23.7.2002. 2. By Notification in Advertisement No.24 published in the newspaper dated 28.12.2001, applications were called for among other posts for the post of Secretary (Law), Government of Pondicherry, Law Department by the second respondent herein. The petitioner is stated to have filed his application for the said post. The petitioner claims that he satisfied all the qualifications described in the said notification. However, when the petitioner did not receive any call letter for the interview, he came forward with W.P.No.24982 of 2002 for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to call the petitioner for interview for the post of Law Secretary. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 12.7.2002 and the order was to the following effect:- " In result, i) the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the third respondent-Government within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation, the third respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on merit and in accordance with law with due opportunity for the petitioner to be heard within a period of eight weeks thereafter. ii) the above writ petition is disposed of with the above direction." 3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred his representation dated 23.7.2002 to the respondents herein. Subsequently, the interviews for the said post were fixed for 27th and 28th August, 2002. The petitioner therefore came forward with the present writ petition for a mandamus as prayed for therein. The petitioner also filed WPMP.No.43640 of 2002 for an interim prayer to direct the second respondent to include his name for the said selection in the interview to be held on 27th and 28th August, 2002, as per the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.24982 of 2002 as well as his representation dated 23.7.2002. The petitioner also filed WPMP.No.43640 of 2002 for an interim prayer to direct the second respondent to include his name for the said selection in the interview to be held on 27th and 28th August, 2002, as per the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.24982 of 2002 as well as his representation dated 23.7.2002. Initially, notice was ordered in WPMP. Subsequently, on 26.8.2002, an interim order came to be passed to the following effect." Inspite of service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Hence, pending the above writ petition, there shall be a direction as prayed for in the above WPMP. However, the results of selection shall be kept in abeyance." 4. In fact, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner expressed his grievance in ground No.5 to the effect that he came to know about the receipt of call letter by some of the applicants including one Sri. K. Veeramani, Under Secretary for the interview to be held on 27th and 28th August, 2002, that he had sent a telegram by way of another representation on 9.8.2002 to the respondents to which there was no response from the respondents and therefore, he was obliged to move this Court by way of the present writ petition. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was granted the interim order as prayed for on 26.8.2002 to enable the petitioner to get his name included in the interview to be held on 27th and 28th August, 2002. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not avail the relief granted to the petitioner by way of the interim order in WPMP.No.49650 of 2002 in W.P.No.33520 of 2002 on 26.8.2002, but the petitioner was rest content by sending a communication to the respondents on 26.8.2002 and it is claimed that the said communication was sent by telegram on 27.8.2002. 5. Be that as it may, to the petitioner's representation dated 23.7.2002, the third respondent herein called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 4.9.2002 at 4 p.m. for making his submissions, if any, regarding his candidature for the post of Law Secretary, Government of Pondicherry as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.24982 of 2002. The said communication dated 26.8.2002 though was received by the petitioner, he did not avail the said opportunity also. The said communication dated 26.8.2002 though was received by the petitioner, he did not avail the said opportunity also. Instead by a letter dated 30.8.2002, he wanted the third respondent to fix some other convenient date other than 4th September, 2002. In the said communication, the petitioner contended that the interviews were held on 27th and 28th August, 2002 ignoring his telegram dated 9.8.2002. Subsequently, the personal hearing, which was originally fixed on 4.9.2002 was postponed to 13.9.2002 at 4 p.m. as requested by the petitioner and the same was also communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 6.9.2002. The petitioner is stated to have appeared before the third respondent on 13.9.2002 and has also submitted his written representation along with various documents. 6. Though, the interview scheduled on 27th and 28th August, 2002 was proceeded with, but the results could not be published by virtue of the interim order dated 26.8.2002 till this date. In the above said circumstances, it can only be stated that in spite of the interim direction of this Court permitting the petitioner to participate in the interview schedule to be held on 27th and 28th August, 2002, the petitioner for reasons best known to him did not choose to avail the said opportunity but only wanted the respondents to communicate to him a fresh date of interview to be held for him alone in order to test his capability for holding the said post. 7. In fact, when the petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.No.24982 of 2002 with the very same prayer for a direction to call him for the interview as per the notification dated 22.12.2001 for the post of Law Secretary, this Court was not inclined to grant the said relief but only directed the petitioner to make his representation to the respondents herein and work out his remedy through the said representation. In such circumstances, when the petitioner came forward with the present writ petition and interim order came to be granted on 26th August, 2002. Considering the urgency expressed by the petitioner by pointing out the interview scheduled on 27th and 28th August, 2002, the petitioner ought to have availed the opportunity and made himself available at the venue with the direction issued by this Court instead of calling upon the respondents to fix a separate date to interview him alone for the post. Considering the urgency expressed by the petitioner by pointing out the interview scheduled on 27th and 28th August, 2002, the petitioner ought to have availed the opportunity and made himself available at the venue with the direction issued by this Court instead of calling upon the respondents to fix a separate date to interview him alone for the post. If inspite of the petitioner making himself available at the venue along with the order of this Court and had he not been permitted to participate in the interview, there would have been some justification for the petitioner to express any grievance. The petitioner should have realised that when interview for a key post is arranged by the Central Government, it requires convening of high level officers to hold the interview and in the said circumstances, the petitioner, who was aspiring to become a Law Secretary ought to have realised the importance as well as such valuable time that would have been spent by such high level officers in holding the said interview. Therefore, the callous manner in which the petitioner acted even after obtaining the interim order from this Court on 26.8.2002 only disclose that the petitioner was not seriously interested in attending the interview, but only wanted to put the respondents in a tight corner and hold them to ransom. Such an attitude of the petitioner is sufficiently demonstrated by his own conduct in coolly addressing a communication to the respondents after obtaining the interim order on 26.8.2002 by sending a telegram on 27.8.2002 without taking any effort to make himself available at the venue of the interview either on 27th or 28th of August, 2002. 8. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no bona fide at all in the conduct of the petitioner. I therefore, do not find any merits in his claim in now stating that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to participate in the interview. I therefore, do not find any justification at all in the conduct of the petitioner in his failure to avail the opportunity of attending the interview on 27th or 28th August, 2002 in which interview as per the direction of this Court, he could have very well participated by producing the order of this Court dated 26.8.2002. By his own conduct, the petitioner deprived himself of the opportunity afforded to him. By his own conduct, the petitioner deprived himself of the opportunity afforded to him. In fact whatever grievance, the petitioner expressed in the writ petition was duly granted to him in the interim order itself. Therefore, for the above said reasons, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. 9. As stated earlier because of the imprudent act of the petitioner, the resultant consequence was that though the interview for the key post of Law Secretary was held as scheduled on 27th and 28th August, 2002, the respondents were disabled from announcing the results till this date, which has only caused inconvenience to the public at large inasmuch as the said post could not be filled up for more than a year. For which act, the petitioner should alone be wholly held responsible. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/=. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed.