JUDGMENT Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. This is a case where the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited applications for selection of posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board by notification in the Gazette, dated 15th December, 1981. The last date fixed for the receipt of application was 27th January 1982. The petitioner submitted two applications before the Public Service Commission. One application was submitted for considering the petitioner for appointment to the post in the Departmental quota and the other application for the open merit quota. It would appear that these applications which had sent by registered post on 22nd January, 1982 were received by the Deputy Secretary of the Public Service Commission, who receives such registered applications on 29th January, 1982. This was beyond the time fixed for receipt of the applications and therefore the applications were rejected. 2. The petitioner made a representation to the Commission in the matter to consider the circumstances she pointed out that she had sent the applications sufficiently early viz. on 22nd January, 1982 and the petitioner is not responsible for the delay and therefore her applications should be considered to have been received in time. The Commission did not accept this. What the petitioner contends is that the cardinal principle that the rules are made to serve the proper functioning of the scheme and that rule should not work injustice by destroying the very purpose for which the rules are made, has not been taken note of by the Commission. It is submitted that the discretion has to be exercised always reasonably and when it is not exercised reasonably the courts have always power to correct any administrative authority. The petitioner quotes Lord Coke: "For discretion is a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to their wills and private affection; for as one saith, tails discretio discretionem confundit." The petitioner would state that is wholly inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good, and within the true policy of the statute, to exercise the power as it pleases. The power has to be exercised reasonably. There is nothing paradoxical in the imposition of such legal limits. The power has to be exercised reasonably. There is nothing paradoxical in the imposition of such legal limits. There is no unfettered discretion, is a dictum not confined to the sphere of administration. It is stated that it would be proper in the circumstance to have accepted the petitioner's application also. Therefore the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the Public Service Commission, to consider the application of the petitioner and to call the petitioner for interview. 3. The Public Service Commission has taken up the position that in the nature of its powers it will not be possible for the Commission to take into account belated applications. Now the question has come up for consideration in some earlier cases as to how far the Commission is bound by prescribed rules of procedure and whether an application, not in conformity with the rules could be taken into consideration. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese (ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523), a Rivision Bench of this Court consisting of Justice Subramonian Poti, as he then was, and Justice George Vadakkel said that it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission has no power to prescribe the condition regarding receipt of applications. When the Public Service Commission insists upon the prescription of the rules regarding the receipt of applications, it is not for this court to go into this question further. If the Commission has prescribed something, its non compliance must result in rejection. In that case what happened was the petitioner therein desired to sit for departmental test for the Executive and Ministerial Staff of the Kerala State Electricity Board which was held in April 1974 in order to seek promotion from the post of Junior Assistants held by them to that of Senior Assistants. In order to sit for the examination the petitioners had to remit certain amount into the Treasury and the Original Chalan receipts had to be produced along with the application before the Office of the Public Service Commission. The petitioners had paid their examination fee towards the close of the period fixed for sending application and for want of time the first petitioner thought of directly submitting the application before the Office of the Kerala Public Service Commission at Trivandrum. The petitioners had paid their examination fee towards the close of the period fixed for sending application and for want of time the first petitioner thought of directly submitting the application before the Office of the Kerala Public Service Commission at Trivandrum. For that purpose he was on his way in the bus but then he found that he had lost his diary, a diary in which the original chalan receipts were kept. On discovering this he is said to have immediately returned to Thodupuzha Sub Treasury and requested for issue of duplicate copies of the three chalan receipts relating to payment by three petitioners. He was told that there was no provision to issue duplicate chalan receipts and what they could do to evidence payment was only to issue certificates as envisaged in R.94 of the Treasury Code Vol. I. Thereafter taking certificates evidencing the payments the applications were submitted to the Office of the Public Service Commission. Since the condition required by the notification of the Public Service Commission for a proper application to be made was not accompanied in the case of the three applications, these applications were rejected by the Public Service Commission. This court said that a body like the Public Service Commission is dealing with several thousands of applications and in screening these applications with a view to reject such of those as are not in accordance with the requirements notified, the Clerical Staff of the Commission will have to be depended upon to do the job. The direction to entertain or reject applications ought not to be conferred on such staff lest it may lead to abuse. Therefore it is only proper that the Public Service Commission lays down rules and directs strict enforcement of such rules. To expect the Public Service Commission either as a body or any of the members authorised in that behalf by the Commission to scrutinise all applications with a view to ascertain compliance with the requirements specified and investigate into the circumstances which result in default of compliance would be to expect the impossible. It is not fair to interfere in these matters unless it is shown that there has been mala fides in the conduct for the Commission or any of its officers in the matter of rejecting application or there has been callousness or disregard of its own directions. It is not fair to interfere in these matters unless it is shown that there has been mala fides in the conduct for the Commission or any of its officers in the matter of rejecting application or there has been callousness or disregard of its own directions. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of an application for non compliance with the requirements specified by its own notification merely because this Court feels it is unfortunate that the application happened to be rejected it may not be fair for this Court to direct the Public Service Commission to entertain the application. 4. This view was reiterated by another Division Bench in R. Rengaswamy v. Kerala Public Service Commission (ILR 1982 (2) Ker. 59). There the case had come up before the Division Bench by a reference from Justice Narendran, who had thought that in the light of the ruling in Uma Sankar v. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 1457 ) the earlier decision had to be considered afresh. The Supreme Court had said in the decision referred to: "The terms and conditions of service are intended to be constructed reasonably, and too technical a view can defect the essential spirit and intent embodied in them. The intention was to appoint meritorious sportsmen to the sports and that object is served if a person who had qualified and was selected for representing his University in an inter university tournament conducted by the inter university sports board is appointed, notwithstanding that he was actually prevented from participating because of reasons beyond his control." The Court said that the case could easily be distinguished. There, it was the accidental illness of the petitioner that disabled him from participation in the sports meet. The facts are dissimilar with the facts in the earlier case, which had come before this court in Varghese's case (ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523). Justice Khalid, who presided over the bench, quoted with approval another Division Bench ruling of this Court in W.A. No. 371 of 1976 reported in 1978 KLN 305. The facts are dissimilar with the facts in the earlier case, which had come before this court in Varghese's case (ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523). Justice Khalid, who presided over the bench, quoted with approval another Division Bench ruling of this Court in W.A. No. 371 of 1976 reported in 1978 KLN 305. There this Court said: "Whatever be the reason for the strictness and the rigour of the rules enjoined by the Public Service Commission, the instructions in the notification and in the application form appear to us to be clear and categories omission to fill up any of the entries in the application form must be visited with the consequence prescribed. In this region, we see no scope for directing the commission to be more humane or less strict and to interfere on these considerations with the Commission's action in the rejection of the application." The Court also referred to the decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241), where it was said: "Inasmuch as the candidate had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the notification regarding production of the documents in proof of possession by her of the prescribed qualifications along with the application submitted by him to the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission was acting fully within its rights in rejecting the application, and no interference was called for with the impugned orders, passed by the Commission. The conditions stipulated by the Public Service Commission in the notification were in no way unreasonable. Such being the case, it was fully within the competence and jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to determine whether the applications submitted by the candidate was a valid one in the sense of its having conformed to the stipulations contained in the notification and to reject the same on its being found that those conditions were not satisfied." After quoting the same, Justice Khalid observed that the Public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification inviting application. It will not be within the province of this Court to issue direction to the Commission to whittle down the rigour of the conditions and stipulations. The Commission will be within its rights in rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification. It will not be within the province of this Court to issue direction to the Commission to whittle down the rigour of the conditions and stipulations. The Commission will be within its rights in rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification. The learned Judge pointed out that the Commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff had to sort the applications submitted in proper form, process them and take follow up action. No discretion is given to the Commission or freedom to the staff to relax the conditions in the notification. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone irregularities of omissions. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending other extenuating considerations. The Court further said that the Commission has to adhere strictly to its norms and its working can be streamlined only by strict adherence to the norms set by it. A case here or a case there may invoke sympathy or may deserve sympathy. But it is not within the province of this Court to extend sympathy in such cases. The Public Service Commission, it is pointed out, is a high constitutional authority, and this Court would normally be loathe in interfering with its decisions, unless strong grounds are made out like mala fides, etc. 5. In view of this positive pronouncements by the Division Bench I do not think this Court should interfere in the matter. The Original Petition is dismissed. In the circumstance, no order as to costs.