Judgment :- Responding to the advertisement of the Public Service Commission inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Surveyor on Rs.330-515 in the Public Health Engineering Department, the petitioners submitted applications. The qualifications prescribed for the post (vide the Special rules) and notified were: 1. Pass in S.S.L.C. or its equivalent qualification. 2. Must possess any of the following qualifications: I. Surveying and Levelling (Higher) K.G.T.E. or M.G.T.E. and any two of the following:- (a) Building Drawing & Estimating (Lower) (b) Building Materials and Construction (Lower) (c) Earth Work & Road making (Lower) (d) Hydraulics and Irrigation (Lower) and Mensuration (Lower) OR II. Surveying and Levelling (Higher) and pass in the Plumber Trade under the Craftsman Training Scheme. OR III. Trade Certificate awarded by the Director General of Resettlement and Employment in the Surveyor Trade. OR IV. National Trade Certificate in Surveyor Trade". 2. The qualifications of the petitioners are S.S.L.C. and K.G.C.E. Civil Engineering. As the K.G.C.E. Civil Engineering is not a prescribed qualification for the post, either going by the special rules or the advertisement, the applications of the petitioners were rejected. 3. The petitioners thereupon have filed this O.P. challenging the orders of the P.S.C. rejecting their applications. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of Ext.P9 dt. 21-5-1970 prescribing the Kerala Government Certificate Examination in Civil, Mechanical Engineering (KGCE) as an alternate qualification in respect of all posts for which KGTE or MGTE is prescribed, the petitioners must be declared as possessing the requisite qualification and if that be the position, the orders rejecting their applications are unsustainable. Dilating on this aspect the learned counsel further argues that the Government recognised KGCE as equivalent only in consultation with the P.S.C; the P.S.C. therefore is bound to follow Ext.P9 while determining the question as to whether the petitioners possess the requisite qualification for the post. 5. The learned counsel for the P.S.C. nonetheless argues that unless and until the special rules are amended suitably incorporating the above prescription discernible from Ext.P9 namely that KGCE in Civil Engineering can be recognised as equivalent to the Group Certificate under MGTE, the Commission cannot entertain the applications of candidates possessing KGCE certificate. The Commission cannot but go only by the Special Rules. The Commission cannot but go only by the Special Rules. It is relevant in this context to note, the counsel submits, that the Government in fact have requested the Commission to finalise selection strictly in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in the special rules. 6. The question thus arising for consideration is: was the P.S.C. justified in rejecting the applications of the petitioners notwithstanding Ext.P9 order of the Government declaring KGCE as an alternative/or equivalent qualification to the group certificate under MGTE. To find an answer to this question it is necessary to have a probe into some of the well established principles discernible from the service jurisprudence. 7. I shall now state the said principles. No appointments shall be made in disregard to the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications because such appointments are not a matter only between the appointing authority and those who were appointed. It concerns those who have similar or even better qualifications than the appointees but who could not apply for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It, as observed by the Supreme Court, amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless the advertisement clearly states that the qualifications are relaxable. Otherwise the court would be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. Where steps are initiated to select suitable candidates by issuing the advertisement the selection requires to be regulated by the then existing rules and Government Orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government Order pending the selection "should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the PSC unless the amended Rules or the amended Government Orders issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provision or by necessary intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections". It is said so because a statutory rule or Government Order is generally treated as prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective in operation. In exercise of the power vested in it under Article 320(3) of The Constitution, the PSC, before it recommends a candidate for a post, has to decide whether that candidate fulfills the qualification prescribed by the advertisement inviting applications. In exercise of the power vested in it under Article 320(3) of The Constitution, the PSC, before it recommends a candidate for a post, has to decide whether that candidate fulfills the qualification prescribed by the advertisement inviting applications. Such recommendation however, will only a provisional recommendation and therefore the PSC on enquiry at a later stage finds that the said candidate does not possess the requisite qualifications, the PSC, has the power to withdraw the recommendation and consequently the appointment can be cancelled. Such decision of the PSC cannot be faulted though the duty to consult the PSC in the matter of appointment to civil posts is not mandatory but only directory and as such any appointment made to a civil post without consulting the PSC will not be rendered invalid or illegal. In cases of the former the only course, the Government can adopt is to re advertise the post and make fresh appointments. (See M.C. Bindal v. R.C. Singh (1989 (1) SCC 136), N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka PSC (1990) 3 SCC 157), District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram S.W.R.S. Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990 (3) SCC 655). 8. The order of the PSC rejecting the applications of the petitioners, considered in the light of the above principles of service jurisprudence, is unassailable. The PSC, it can be seen from the counter affidavit, was satisfied that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed qualifications, ie. the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Subsequent orders of the Government declaring the KGCE is equivalent to KGTE & MGTE has rightly been brushed aside by the PSC while considering the claim of the petitioners for the post. If that be the position there is little scope to interfere with the orders under challenge. The O.P. fails. Accordingly the same is dismissed. However the petitioners if similarly situated as the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 112,156 etc. of 1990 before the Supreme Court and so advised, can press into service the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority (1990 (2) KLT 673 (S.C.)) and claim relief before the appropriate authorities.