JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Misra, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission. 2. The facts giving rise the present petition, are briefly as follows : "The Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission, issued an advertisement for filling up the posts Naib of Tehsildar and other posts through a competitive combined lower subordinate examination, 1983. The petitioner applied to the Commission in pursuance of the said advertisement. 3. In pursuance of the application made by the petitioner he was permitted to appear in the written test and was declared successful. The petitioner was thereafter called for interview in respect of the post in question. 4. On 22nd August, 1983 interview of the petitioner was held and the result of examination was declared, but the petitioner's result was withheld. 5. The petitioner, thereafter made enquiries from the office of the Commission and it was discovered that his result was withheld on the ground that he has not deposited a sum of Rs. 55 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Commission. 6. This is the sole ground on the basis of which the result is not being declared by the Commission. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs 55 in the treasury of the State of Bihar. The contention of the Commission is that that this amount of Rs. 55 should have been deposited in the State of U. P. and since the amount has been deposited in the State of Bihar as such the application of the petitioner was not entertainable and, consequently, the Commission was justified in refusing to declare the result. 8. At the outset, it may be stated that the deposit of Rs. 55 is only for the purpose to enable the Commission to hold the examination. It is not such a mandatory condition, which entitles the Commission not to declare the result of the candidate after having permitted a candidate to give the written test and also appear at the interview. 9. 55 is only for the purpose to enable the Commission to hold the examination. It is not such a mandatory condition, which entitles the Commission not to declare the result of the candidate after having permitted a candidate to give the written test and also appear at the interview. 9. In so far as the present case is concerned, to have summoned the original record from the Commission and we find that in the application submitted to the Commission, it was categorically stated that a sum of Rs. 55 was deposited in the State Bank of India (Bihar) by virtue of the Challan dated 3-2-1984. In the Challan, which has been produced before us, it is clearly, mentioned that the amount has been deposited in the name of the Secretary, Public Service Commission, Allahabad and it has also been deposited in the Account No. 051 Examination fee Public Service Commission, U. P. Allahabad. This amount was accepted by the State Bank of India (Bihar) in pursuance of the Challan submitted by the petitioner. The fact is, consequently, that the petitioner did deposit a sum of Rs. 55 by treasury challan in the State of Bihar through State Bank of India. 10. Learned counsel for the Commission has urged that the amount should have been deposited in the treasury in the State of U. P., through the State Bank of India U. P. and since this has not been done, the form cannot be treated as valid form. He has relied upon the provision in the advertisement in support of his argument, which is as follows : "Fee is payable to Secretary Public Service Commission, U. P. Allahabad by means of treasury challan only in the Account Head "051 Examination fee/Fee realised by that State Public Service Commission, U. P." Candidate residing out side U. P. may however remit the fee through Crossed Bank Draft of India Payable to the Secretary, Public Service Commission, U. P. drawn on Allahabad, main Branch of the State Bank of India. Fee paid by any other means will not be accepted and the application will be rejected, From the perusal of the provision, it is clear that the candidate can pay the fee by the modes either by depositing through treasury challan in the account Head specified above or by crossed Bank draft in favour of the Commission. The petitioner chose the first mode. The petitioner chose the first mode. From the reading of the above provision, it is clear that it has not been stated by the Commission that the amount can only be deposited in the State of U. P. the only requirement was that the amount shall be deposited through the treasury challan mentioning the Head of the account. From the treasury challan it is clear that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 55 by means of the treasury challan in the State of Bihar in the account head as mentioned in the provision. In the circumstances, the petitioner has fully complied with the conditions laid down for entertainment of the application form. 11. The learned counsel for the commission has urged that this provision should be so interpreted to mean that the amount has to be deposited by means of a treasury challan in the State of U. P. The learned counsel for the Commission may be correct that the intention of this provision was as urged by him, but the actual provision cannot by interpreted as since it is wholly vague. It cannot be said that this provision makes it mandatory for a candidate to deposit the amount by treasury challan in the State of U. P. If any provision is vague the Commission cannot take the benefit of the same. The benefit will go in favour of the Candidate, who followed the provisions laid down in the form. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner had complied with the conditions for entertainment of his form by depositing a sum of Rs. 55 and as such the decision of the Commission not to entertain the application and to reject it in our opinion, is illegal and arbitrary. 12. We may, however, observe that in future the Commission should modify this provision, so that it is made clear that the deposit by means of treasury challan can only be accepted if it is so done in the State of U. P. through State Bank of India in the State of U. P. We further suggest that the candidate throughout the country should not be confined to tending the bank drafts through State Bank of India only, but the Commission should accept the bank draft or other Nationalised Banks also and we hope that this condition would be specifically incorporated in future in the advertisement. 13. 13. The learned counsel for the petition has stated before us that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 55 by the treasury challan in the State of Bihar, he is again ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 55 in favour of the Secretary, Public Service Commission, Allahabad, but his result be be declared without delay. We, accordingly, think fit, proper in order to avoid any further controversy to direct the petitioner to again deposit a sum of Rs. 55 through crossed Bank draft in favour of the Secretary, Public Service Commission Allahabad within a week from today and the said amount shall be accepted by the Secretary. 14. In view of the above the petition is allowed and the order dated 22nd August, 1989 is hereby quashed we further direct that the result of the petitioner shall be declared after a week on the receipt of the Bank draft of Rs. 55 as directed above. 15. The petition is disposed of accordingly.