ORDER : Petitioner was selected to the post of Junior Engineer in the open market competition because of her comparative better performance qua the third respondent Smt. Madhushri S K, who was next below in the rank; she was required to appear for verification, with all the original records along with one set of photocopies thereof on 26.11.2017 at 2.30 PM at KPTCL Accounts Office, Race Course Road, Ananda Rao Circle, Bengaluru; there is no reason to doubt the version of respondent - KPTCL that an intimation was sent to her cell phone, by SMS. 2. Petitioner who was on visit to Davanagere on 19.11.2017 having contracted illness was admitted to Jadhav Hospital there, on 24.11.2017 for treatment and came to be discharged on 28.11.2017, which fact is prima facie evidenced by the Certificate issued by the said Hospital and the Discharge Card both dated 28.11.2017 vide Annexures G1 & G2; however the fact remains that because of this hospitalization, she could not attend the verification exercise on the appointed day and consequently the next below candidate namely, the third respondent herein was issued appointment letter dated 22.05.2018. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner had made a representation dated 05.12.2017 explaining her disablement on account of hospitalization from participating in the verification exercise and requesting, because of that, another opportunity be given to present herself with the original documents for verification; this having been rejected vide Endorsement dated 21.12.2017 at Annexure-H, she has knocked at the doors of Writ Court. 4. After service of notice the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are represented by the learned Panel Counsel Sri Harikrishna Holla, who has filed a Statement of Objections resisting the writ petition; respondents Nos. 3, 4 & 5 being the selectees, despite service of notice, have chosen to remain unrepresented; however the respondent No.6 after service of notice having appeared through her counsel resists the writ petition orally adopting the Objections filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 5. 3, 4 & 5 being the selectees, despite service of notice, have chosen to remain unrepresented; however the respondent No.6 after service of notice having appeared through her counsel resists the writ petition orally adopting the Objections filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, petitioner needs to be granted relief for the following reasons: (a) the admitted position is that, the petitioner is comparatively more meritorious than the selectee – respondents and it was an open market competition; the object of selection as repeatedly stressed by the Apex Court is to chose the best from the available lot; that way, petitioner is a better candidate if not the best, qua the selectee respondents; (b) petitioner’s visit to Davanagere during the period between 19.11.2017 & 28.11.2017 and her hospitalization between 24.11.2017 & 28.11.2017 are not in dispute; virus and bacteria attack the living beings without prior notice, is not disputed; petitioner could not imagine well in advance that she would be a victim of these microbes on the eventful day, i.e., 26.11.2017, when she was still on the patient bed; this aspect of the matter has escaped due consideration at the hands of the respondent – KPTCL which has treated the petitioner as if an electrical appliance which follows the rules of Physics & Chemistry; but, humans are not the commodities; the Apex Court, time and again has stressed that the organizations which answer the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, need to conduct themselves in a fair & reasonable manner and as model employers; this having not been done, there is a legal infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents which needs to be remedied; (c) petitioner as already stated above was hospitalized during the period between 24.11.2017 & 28.11.2017; assuming against her, she can be attributed with all the information/intimation that was sent to by mail/SMS as to the requirement of her being present at Bengaluru Office with all the original documents on 26.11.2017; still it would not lend legitimacy to the impugned action of the official respondents inasmuch as the petitioner was confined to hospital bed and therefore, much cannot be derived from the contention of the said respondents that she was in the know of the date on which she was required to be present at Bengaluru Office, for verification exercise; this aspect too having been blown much out of proportion, the request of the petitioner vide subject representation for giving one more opportunity, stood rejected unjustifiably; and, (d) the action of the contesting official respondents in rejecting her representation for granting one more opportunity is highly arbitrary, unreasonable & unfair inasmuch as, the petitioner was required to be at Bengaluru Office on 26.11.2017 which she could not in view of hospitalization; admittedly on 05.12.2017, she gave a representation i.e., immediately after coming back to Bengaluru; heavens would not have fallen down if one more opportunity was given to the petitioner when the recruitment process had not yet fructified because the appointment orders were yet to be issued to the candidates; admittedly the Appointment Notification itself came to be published only on 22.05.2018; thus, the respondents have acted as if they are a subsidiary unit of East India Company of colonial days, and not as an instrumentality of a welfare State, to say the least; In the above very special circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement; and consequently, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to produce the original documents for verification, and thereafter to issue appointment order, if she is otherwise eligible. It is also open to the 1st respondent to accommodate the petitioner by creating a post if necessary so that the present incumbent thereof may also be retained in employment; however, petitioner shall not be denied or delayed the appointment in the guise of creating a supernumerary post. Time for compliance is eight weeks; if compliance is not done within the said period, the first respondent shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-per month to the petitioner, till after the compliance is reported; this amount may be recovered from the concerned, in accordance with law. Now, no costs.