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. 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 applicant to participate in the interview on 29.04.2022 or on any other convenient date, which the KPSC was directed to inform the applicant in writing. It was made clear in that interim order that merely because the applicant was permitted to participate in the interview provisionally, no rights would ensure to the applicant, and the said arrangement would be subject to the outcome of the original petition. Later, by the judgment dated 07.07.2022, this Court disposed of O.P.(KAT)No.119 of 2022, making that interim order absolute and relegating the applicant to the Tribunal for a decision in the O.A. It was made clear in that judgment that all contentions of the parties on the merits of the case are left open to be agitated before the Tribunal. 4. The 1 st petitioner filed a reply statement dated 05.10.2022 in O.A.No.476 of 2022 and a reply statement dated 11.09.2023 in O.A.No.668 of 2022. 4. The 1 st petitioner filed a reply statement dated 05.10.2022 in O.A.No.476 of 2022 and a reply statement dated 11.09.2023 in O.A.No.668 of 2022. In both the reply statements, the 1 st petitioner raised almost the very same contentions. For clarity of understanding, paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 to 10 of the reply statement filed in O.A.No.668 of 2022 by the 1 st petitioner are extracted hereunder: “4. The interview for selection to this post was scheduled in 4 stages, 2021 November, December, 2022 January and March on the basis of the interview programmes published by the Hon’ble Commission. An SMS was sent to the officially registered phone number registered in the profile of the candidates directing to visit their One Time Registration Profile of KPSC for information regarding the interview. The details such as Date, Time, Venue and Batch etc. regarding the interview was made available in the "ANNOUNCEMENTS" link and the interview memo in "ADMISSION TICKET" link in the candidates’ profile. Moreover, press release was published in this connection in leading dailies and media. The interview schedule was available in the official website of Kerala Public Service Commission. 5. The interview date of Smt. Sabeetha K. was scheduled on 06.01.2022. The main contention in the OA is that the notification or notice regarding the interview was not sent or posted in the profile of the applicant. It is submitted that an SMS was sent to the officially registered phone number of the applicant Sabeetha K. on 22.12.2021, directing to visit her One Time Registration Profile of KPSC for information regarding the interview on 06.01.2022. Profile message in this regard was also sent. The applicant Sabeetha K. has logged in her profile before the interview on 02.01.2022 (twice), 03.01.2022 and 04.01.2022. It implies that the applicant was aware of the date, time and place of interview before her actual date of interview and the contention raised in this regard is against the actual facts, without any merit. 6. xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. xxxx xxxx xxxx 8. It is submitted that when the interview memo is generated, SMS will be sent to all candidates short listed, through the mobile phone registered in their profile. In addition, profile message will also be sent to all candidates intimating the date, time and venue of the interview. 6. xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. xxxx xxxx xxxx 8. It is submitted that when the interview memo is generated, SMS will be sent to all candidates short listed, through the mobile phone registered in their profile. In addition, profile message will also be sent to all candidates intimating the date, time and venue of the interview. Sending of SMS and making available the details of the interview in "ANNOUNCEMENTS" link and interview memo in "ADMISSION TICKET" link is the procedure followed by the KPSC for all candidates participating in the various stages of selection including interview. In the instant case, on going through the log in details, it is clear that the applicant had logged into her profile at the time of issuance of message regarding interview scheduled to her. But the total negligence on her part made her absent in the interview. Instead of admitting the lapse on her part, she is simply blaming the Commission stating that no intimation is forwarded to her regarding the interview. 9. Vide the Judgment in WA-1782/2011, Preetha P. S. vs K.P.S.C, the Hon’ble High Court held that the Public Service Commission is not required to send interview card by registered post when the newspaper publications are made along with website publication. The appellant ought to have followed up the matter which she did not do. Consequently no interference is called for. The WA was thus dismissed. 10. It is clear that communication via notice on the Commission’s website and SMS and Profile message is enough for intimation. It is submitted that the intimation regarding the interview was also published in the PSC bulletin on 15/12/2021 i.e,one month prior to the date of interview. The interview programme was also published in Commission’s website one month prior to the interview. Here, in the instant case, SMS and profile message were also send to the applicant. As such Commission have made all possible efforts to intimate the applicant of the Interview date.Even after logging into her profile during the relevant time, she failed to attend the interview. PSC cannot be blamed for the fault on the part of the candidate. The irresponsible attitude of the applicant has lead to this situation.” 5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, by the order dated 16.12.2024, the original applications were disposed of by the Tribunal. PSC cannot be blamed for the fault on the part of the candidate. The irresponsible attitude of the applicant has lead to this situation.” 5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, by the order dated 16.12.2024, the original applications were disposed of by the Tribunal. Paragraphs 6 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “6. While evaluating the factual situation we accept the contentions raised by the PSC that there occurred failure on the part of the applicants in participating in the interview, despite due intimations given as required under the relevant Rules and procedures. However, we take note of the fact that all the applicants were permitted to participate in the interview based on orders issued. On that basis, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that, a lenient view can be taken to direct the PSC to include their names in the ranked list published, in appropriate ranking position. However, we make it clear that the above direction is issued merely based on the factual situation prevailing in these cases and not based on any legal right established by the applicants. We make it also clear that, the directions issued in this regard in the above cases shall not be treated as a precedent in any other cases, especially because of the fact that this Tribunal had not made any adjudication into the merits of the claims raised by the applicants. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Original Applications are hereby disposed of by directing the PSC and its officials to re-notify the ranked list published with respect to the selection made to the post in question, by including names of the applicants in both the cases at the appropriate positions. Needless to observe that, the applicants shall be advised for appointment depending upon their ranking position and on the basis of the Rotation Chart which will be prepared without any further delay.” 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents, and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the impugned order, the Tribunal found that there occurred a failure on the part of the applicants in participating in the interview, despite due intimations given as required under the relevant rules and procedures. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the impugned order, the Tribunal found that there occurred a failure on the part of the applicants in participating in the interview, despite due intimations given as required under the relevant rules and procedures. Therefore, the subsequent direction given by the Tribunal to include the names of the applicants in the rank list with respect to the selection made to the post in question, is illegal and is liable to be interfered with by this Court, exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Raghavan v. PSC [ 1985 KLT 880 ] and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated12.07.2023 in O.P.(KAT) No.4 of 2023. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants/party respondents contended that in the profile of the applicants, no intimation was received with regard to the interview scheduled by the 1 st petitioner. It is true that the applicants logged into their profile page. However, they did not receive the interview memo. Hence, there is no laches on the part of the applicants in appearing for the interview, and therefore, there is no interference warranted to the impugned order of the Tribunal. 9. In Raghavan [ 1985 KLT 880 ] , a candidate for recruitment to the post of Excise Guards, sought a direction against the KPSC for arranging a special interview contending that he has not received the post card intimating the interview. After analyzing the facts, this Court dismissed the original petition holding that there is no necessity for a special interview for the benefit of the petitioner therein alone at the distance of time, when the ranked list itself has long ceased to be operative. 10. In O.P.(KAT) No.4 of 2023, the petitioner therein, who failed to submit the confirmation for writing the written examination through the one time registration profile on time, sought for a direction permitting him to make confirmation afresh, so as to download the admission ticket, in order to appear for the written test along with a prayer to condone the delay in submitting the confirmation. The prayer of the petitioner therein was rejected by the Tribunal and by relying on judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R. and Others [ 2019 (5) KHC 875 ] . Challenging the order of the Tribunal, O.P.(KAT)No.4 of 2023, was filed by the petitioner therein. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, this Court held thus: “13. Now coming to the issuance of an SMS alert, we notice that Ext.R1(a) has been produced by the respondents to show that an SMS in the registered mobile number of the applicant has been sent. The SMS details are contained in Annexure-R1(a). The SMS is seen sent on 19.2.2021 and that the same is seen delivered on 20.2.2021 at 6.36 am, as per Annexure-R1(a). We do take notice of the applicant’s contention that the SMS was not delivered in his mobile number on the date and time as claimed by the respondents, in support of which he produced Annexure-A5 SMS/call details. However, we are of the definite opinion that once the Public Service Commission satisfactorily establish that the information has been sent by reliable material, no further liability can be fastened on it to also show that the information had in fact been delivered on the applicant, for, there could be myriad situations and circumstances which prevents the delivery of the article sent, especially, when the information is sent via electronic media. We cannot be oblivious of the inherent frailty, even in the midst of highly advanced technology, of a failure in this regard, be it systemic or otherwise. In the instant facts, we are fully convinced that the Commission had discharged its duty/responsibility by establishing vide Annexure-R1(a) that the SMS was sent to the mobile number of the applicant calling upon him to log into the profile and to submit the confirmation for writing the examination.” 11. In the instant case, the applicants/party respondents are saying that they have not received any communication in their profile regarding the date of the interview. However, the petitioners took a stand that the communications by way of SMS and profile messages were sent to all the candidates, who are entitled to appear for the interview. The applicants are admitting that they opened the portion of their profile described as admission ticket, only after the date of the interview and downloaded the respective interview memos. 12. However, the petitioners took a stand that the communications by way of SMS and profile messages were sent to all the candidates, who are entitled to appear for the interview. The applicants are admitting that they opened the portion of their profile described as admission ticket, only after the date of the interview and downloaded the respective interview memos. 12. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that as per illustration (e) to Section 119 (1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, (‘BSA’ for short) (Previously Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act), Court may presume that all judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In the instant case, the petitioners are saying that they have performed their official act of sending communication to all the candidates intimating the dates of interview. The applicants are also admitting that they have accessed their profile on several occasions prior to the date of interview. They content that they opened the part of their profile described as Admission Ticket only after the date of the interview. However, there is no circumstance or material produced by the applicants/party respondents to accept their said contention, to rebut the presumption under illustration (e) to Section 119 (1) of the BSA or the contention of the petitioners that they have sent the communication regarding the interview through SMS and profile messages. 13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submission made at the Bar, in the light of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the contention of the applicants that they have not received the messages pertaining to the interview and hence, could not appear for the same on the scheduled dates cannot be accepted. It is true that the applicants were permitted to participate in the interview in other districts by the interim orders of the Tribunal as well as this Court. But it was made clear in those orders that the permission to participate in the interview was purely provisional, and it would be subject to the final decision of the O.A. In such circumstances, we find no reason to sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal. But it was made clear in those orders that the permission to participate in the interview was purely provisional, and it would be subject to the final decision of the O.A. In such circumstances, we find no reason to sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the result, these original petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned common order dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Tribunal in the respective original applications bearing numbers O.A.No.476 of 2022 and O.A.No.668 of 2022, and the original applications are consequently stand dismissed.