JUDGMENT : Chitambaresh, J. The respondent along with another secured a place in the short list of candidates who were found provisionally eligible for selection to the post of Lecturer in Microbiology in Medical Education Department. Consequently the respondent was requested to appear in person for the interview along with his testimonials for verification by the petitioner Public Service Commission on 26.04.2017. The respondent was undergoing M.D. (Microbiology) degree course in the Amritavishwa Vidyapeetham University at that time and his written examinations were over on 12.04.2017. But the practical examination and viva-voce stood scheduled between 26.04.2017 and 28.04.2017 although the venue and time were yet to be fixed by the head of the department. 2. The respondent did submit a representation dated 20.04.2017 to the petitioner seeking permission to attend the interview slated on 26.04.2017 on a date either before or after the practical examination and viva-voce. The respondent thereafter moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (EKM) No.810/2017 seeking a direction to the petitioner to defer the interview slated on 26.04.2017. An interim order dated 24.04.2017 followed whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner to postpone the interview to a convenient date other than 26.04.2017, 27.04.2017 or 28.04.2017. 3. The petitioner proceeded with the interview and verification of certificates in respect of other candidates present in the absence of any order of stay and the respondent however did not turn up. It appears that a common interview board had been constituted by the petitioner for conducting the exercise for 57 posts involving as many as 155 candidates which was scheduled in advance. The petitioner moved the Tribunal in M.A.(E) No. 698/2017 for vacating the interim order dated 24.04.2017 on the premise that it will entail in delay in the publication of ranked list. The Tribunal annoyed at the petitioner conducting the interview of others on the date scheduled dismissed the miscellaneous application and made the interim order absolute. O.A.(EKM) No.810/2017 was disposed of by order dated 25.05.2017 directing the petitioner to conduct the interview and verification of the certificates of the respondent before publication of the final list. 4. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal and we heard Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Elvin Peter, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 5. 4. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal and we heard Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Elvin Peter, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 5. The petitioner processes applications for appointment to various posts in several departments and the interview board constituted for the purpose includes its members, experts and head of the departments. The schedule for the interview and verification of certificates are announced well ahead through the website and news bulletin of the petitioner apart from individual communication. The schedule once fixed by the petitioner which is an autonomous body cannot lightly be interfered with to suit the convenience of any particular individual. There is a constitutional obligation on the part of the petitioner to select the best available candidate from the many to a post and the interview and verification of certificates are part of this exercise. 6. The fact that only two candidates have been short listed for the category of post involved is immaterial since a common interview board was constituted by the petitioner for filling up 57 posts concerning 155 candidates. It is not as if an extra-ordinary situation exists like the candidate being in an advanced stage of pregnancy when the petitioner in its discretion can make other arrangements. One such instance in the case of appointment to the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II in Malappuram District was brought to our notice by the respondent in the counter affidavit. But nothing prevented the respondent from attending the practical examination and viva-voce on 27.04.2017 or 28.04.2017 in consultation with the head of the department in the University. The case in hand is not one where the Tribunal can tinker with the calendar of events fixed by the petitioner in the process of recruitment in the Medical Education Department to suit the convenience of the respondent. The offer of the respondent to bear the expenses for convening the interview board again by the petitioner echoed in the order of the Tribunal does not auger well and has only to be rejected. We set aside the interim order dated 24.04.2017 which was made absolute and also the final order dated 25.05.2017 made in O.A.(EKM) No. 810/2017 on the file of the Tribunal. The Original Petition is allowed. No costs.