JUDGMENT K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The appellants are respondents 2 and 6 in O.P. No. 10625 of 1991 -M, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in the above Writ Petition and one of the applicants for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Various Departments) for all Districts. The Commission invited applications for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Various Departments) for all Districts as per notification dated 10.5. 1989. According to the said Notification, candidates should not send applications for more than one District and it further provided that if a candidate get selection by applying to more than one District in the same category his/her selection will be cancelled and disciplinary action would be taken against him/her. The selection was finalised of the basis of a written test and the ranked list was brought into force with effect from 19.6.1990 in all Districts other than Idukki. The first respondent/petitioner was assigned rank No. 55 in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Trivandrum District. Accordingly as per Ext. PI he was advised for appointment as Lower Division Clerk on 10.8.1990 in the Treasury Department. While so, the Commission received a petition alleging that the first respondent herein whose name was included in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk with rank No.55 in Trivandrum District was also included in the ranked list for the same post in Wayanad District assigning rank No.381. On receipt of the above petition, verification was made by the Commission and it was revealed that the allegations was true. The first respondent herein had filled up column No.17(b) of the application submitted in respect of Trivandrum District stating 'No' thereby suppressing the fact that he had applied in Wayanad District also. Column No.17 of the application form is extracted below: "17 (a) If the Gazette notification requires that you should give the Division or Circle District of your choice state your choice. (b) If the Gazette Notification prohibits you from applying for the post for more than one District, State whether you have submitted any application for the post to any other District (say yes or no)." The Commission found that the first respondent herein furnished false statement against column No. 17(b) in his application knowing it to be false. (b) If the Gazette Notification prohibits you from applying for the post for more than one District, State whether you have submitted any application for the post to any other District (say yes or no)." The Commission found that the first respondent herein furnished false statement against column No. 17(b) in his application knowing it to be false. As the first respondent herein was found to have applied for two Districts in response to the same notification, action was initiated against him by issuing Ext. P2 show cause notice dated 1.8.1991. The first respondent herein Ext. P3 reply on 19.8.1991 stating that he submitted his application to the post of Lower Division Clerk in respect of Wayanad District 'hurriedly' and was doubtful whether he had signed the application and thinking that the application would not be admitted by the Wayanad District Office of the Commission he submitted another application in respect of Trivandrum District also. It was further admitted by the first respondent that he appeared for the written test conducted for Wayanad District and he appeared for the written test conducted for Trivandrum District also thinking that his appearance for written test for Wayanad District is provisional? It was also admitted that he was called upon to cure the defect in the application by the Wayanad District Officer of the Commission and the first respondent cured the defects which, enabled him to appear for the written test for Wayanad District also. In view of the above reply of the first respondent, the Commission found that the first respondent had played fraud on it and ordered to delete his name from the ranked list for Lower Division Clerk assigning rank No. 55 in Trivandrum District and rank No. 381 in Wayanad District and to cancel, his advice made on 10.8.1990 (Ext. PI) for appointment in Treasury Department as per Ext. P4 proceedings dated 26.9.91. Ext. P4 order was challenged by the first respondent in O.P. No. 10625/91-M out of which this writ appeal arises - seeking to set aside Ext. P4 and to issue necessary orders to the Commission interdicting them from proceeding pursuant to Ext. P4 and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The crux of the contention of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that Ext. P4 proceedings of the Commission dated 26.9.1991 cancelling Ext. P4 and to issue necessary orders to the Commission interdicting them from proceeding pursuant to Ext. P4 and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The crux of the contention of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that Ext. P4 proceedings of the Commission dated 26.9.1991 cancelling Ext. PI advice memo dated 10.8.1990 is hit by the bar of limitation provided under sub-r.(c) of R.3 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as it has been passed admittedly beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of advice as borne out by Ext. PI. He had a further contention that he submitted his application in respect of Wayanad District 'hurriedly' and was under the bona fide impression that it was defective and thinking that his defective application in Wayanad District could not be entertained, he submitted another application in Trivandrum District also. 3. The Commission filed a counter contending inter alia that the first respondent having suppressed the fact that he applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in response to a notification in more than one District contrary to Clause.22 of the General Conditions of the notification under which candidates who are found guilty of making any false statement in the application form shall be liable for disqualification for being considered for a post is liable to be proceeded under the aforesaid Rule. R.22 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission was incorporated in the General Conditions published along with the notification. The further contention of the Commission was that since the petitioner played fraud on the Commission and 'not a mistake' the period of limitation prescribed in R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules is not applicable and hence Ext. P4 is not liable to be interdicted by this Court. The learned single Judge after adverting to the rival contentions held that "this being a case of 'mistake', the limitation provided in R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules squarely applies" and in the result Ext. P4 cancelling appointment of the petitioner was quashed and the Writ Petition was allowed. This Writ Appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge as already noticed. 4. Heard counsel on both sides. 5. P4 cancelling appointment of the petitioner was quashed and the Writ Petition was allowed. This Writ Appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge as already noticed. 4. Heard counsel on both sides. 5. The question to be considered is whether the finding of the learned single Judge on the question of limitation provided under the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules can be legally sustained or not. The relevant rule is extracted below: "3............................. (c) Not withstanding anything contained in these rules, the Commission shall have the power to cancel the advice for appointment of any candidate to any service if it is subsequently found that such advice was made under some mistake. On such cancellation the appointing authority shall terminate the service of the candidate: Provided that the cancellation of advice for appointment by the Commission and the subsequent termination of service of the candidate by the appointing authority shall, be made within a period of one year from the date of such advice. .................................." From a plain reading of R.3(c) of die Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and the first proviso thereto, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has misdirected himself in treating the false information furnished by the first respondent as a 'mistake' thereby bringing the case within the scope of the aforesaid Rule. In the process learned single Judge lost sight of the crucial fact that the period of limitation provided under the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will be attracted only in case of advice made by the Commission under a mistake on its part, in which case cancellation of advice for appointment shall be made within a period of one year from the date of such advice and will have no application in a case where an applicant has played fraud on the Commission by furnishing false information as in the present case. On the facts disclosed, we have no doubt in our mind that the first respondent perpetrated fraud on the Commission by giving a false answer against column No.17(b) of the application submitted by him suppressing the fact that he had applied for selection in respect of Wayanad District also knowing fully well that sin case a candidate gets selection by applying to more than one District for the same post, his selection is liable to be cancelled and he would also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Viewed in the context of fraud, the first respondent cannot be beard to say that Ext. P4 is barred by ]invitation as provided under the first proviso to R.3(C) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as the said bar of limitation applies only to a case of mistake committed by the Commission and not to a case of fraud being played on the Commission. A party to a fraud cannot be permitted to take advantage of a Rule providing for limitation on the power of the Commission to cancel an advice if it is subsequently found that such advice was made on some mistake. The mistake on the part of the Commission and fraud practised on the Commission are different things. Whereas limitation will apply to the former, the same will not apply to the latter. It is settled by a catena of decisions that all acts of fraud are void. Some times it has been said that a benefit obtained by fraud is nullity, some times that it can be set aside. Lord Cottenham said: "It is true that if a case of fraud be established, Equity will set aside all transactions founded upon it, by whatever machinery they may have been effected, and notwithstanding any contrivances by which it may have been attempted to protect them. (See Modern Law Review, Vol. 18 Page 441). 6. In the instant case, we are told that there was a specific prohibition against applying in respect of two Districts for the same post. In view of the above stipulation of the notification others did not apply for more than one District. The first respondent applied for two Districts and appeared for the written test conducted for both the District on different dates and got placements in both the ranked lists of Trivandrum and Wyanad Districts. In view of the above stipulation of the notification others did not apply for more than one District. The first respondent applied for two Districts and appeared for the written test conducted for both the District on different dates and got placements in both the ranked lists of Trivandrum and Wyanad Districts. On the basis of the higher ranking secured by him in Trivandrum District, he was advised for appointment. Therefore, we are satisfied that it was on account of the fraudulent conduct of the first respondent he got appointment in Trivandrum District which opportunity was denied to others who followed the instructions in the notification. It therefore, follows that the first respondent played fraud on public and got appointment by his fraudulent conduct. In the aforesaid view, the leaned single Judge ought not to have allowed any relief to the first respondent who played fraud on the Commission and on the public. The first respondent cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefit of fraud played by him. We are fortified in our view by die following observation of the Apex Court. In Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Farhats Rasool & Ors. (1995 Supp. (4) SCC 621) the Supreme Court having found that a candidate in his application to the Public Service Commission making a declaration as to having passed the Qualifying examination although the result of that examination had not been announced by then - in spite of the candidate participating in selection and intimating the Selection Committee of his success before completion of the selection- observed as follows: "............. When the respondent had applied for the post in question, he had not passed the examination in question as had been stated by him in his application, form ..... The present is a case where almost a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefits of which fraud cannot be allowed to the respondent". 7. The present is a case where almost a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefits of which fraud cannot be allowed to the respondent". 7. In the case on hand, there can be no controversy that the first respondent committed a fraud on the Commission by giving a false answer against column No. 17(b) of the application submitted by him suppressing the fact that he had applied for selection in respect of Wayanad District knowing fully well that in case a candidate gets selection by applying to more than one District for the same post his selection is liable to be cancelled and he would also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the learned single Judge was in error in not applying the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court which will squarely govern the factual matrix. In an earlier decision reported in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram, Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ( 1990 (3) SCC 655 ) the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the legality of appointment of under qualified person in violation of notification stipulating minimum essential qualification. According to the Court, unless the notification clearly states that the qualification is relaxable such appointment of under qualified hands would amount to fraud on the public. There it was held as follows: "When an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice". 8. Applying the principle to the facts of the present case, the first respondent has to be denied the benefit of Ext.P1 advice memo. Ext. P4 in so far as it cancels Ext. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice". 8. Applying the principle to the facts of the present case, the first respondent has to be denied the benefit of Ext.P1 advice memo. Ext. P4 in so far as it cancels Ext. PI cannot be faulted on any of the grounds mentioned in the O.P. This Court on identical facts upheld the prohibition of candidates applying from two different Districts, Vide decision in K. Ambika v. The Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors. (O.P. No. 2490 of 1993-U) which was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench as per judgment in Writ Appeal No. 612 of 1993 in which it was observed as follows:- "Admittedly, there is a provision which prevents candidates from applying from two different districts. The petitioner appellant not only submitted two applications from two applications from two different districts, but also sat for the examination from two places in the two districts, taking advantage of the date on which examination was conducted was different. The appellant therefore, came within the prohibition, and became disqualified. She, was accordingly disqualified". The action of the first respondent also cannot be supported on the specious plea of bona fide belief as has been done by the learned single Judge. According to the first respondent he bona fide believed that his earlier application in Wayanad District was defective and under such belief he applied in Trivandrum District. The substratum of the contention falls to the ground when it is remembered that the first respondent cured the defects pointed out in the application for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in respect of Wayanad District and he appeared for the written test conducted by the Commission for applicants in Wayanad District and was brought on the ranked list notwithstanding the fact that he had applied for Trivandrum District. The above conduct of the first respondent by any stretch of logic or imagination cannot be said to be a bona fide belief as found by the learned single Judge. His conduct will show that he was aware of the fact that his first application in Wayanad District was a valid one and knowing fully aware of that fact only he applied in Trivandrum District also in violation of the express terms and conditions of the notification, thereby incurring disqualification. 9. His conduct will show that he was aware of the fact that his first application in Wayanad District was a valid one and knowing fully aware of that fact only he applied in Trivandrum District also in violation of the express terms and conditions of the notification, thereby incurring disqualification. 9. From a perusal of the judgment under appeal viz., O.P. 10625/1991 -M we find that the learned single Judge has placed reliance on certain decisions in support of the conclusions reached in the judgment. One such decision is Appukuttan Pillai v. Kerala P.S.C. ( 1984 KLT 880 ). We are afraid that the principles laid down in that decision will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the complaint was about the experience shown by the candidates in support of their applications which on verification were found to be wrong based on which the advice was cancelled. However, the question of limitation, vis-a-vis fraud played on the Commission, as provided in the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules was not the subject matter of adjudication. The next ruling is Kerala P.S.C. v. Malini ( 1996 (2) KLT 332 DB). The reliance on the said decision by the learned single Judge is misplaced. Here again, though the question that arose for consideration was whether the service of the petitioner was terminated within the time fixed by the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, the approach was not from the angle of fraud and as such the reliance on this decision by the learned single Judge is also misplaced. In fact, there is no discussion in the said judgment about the effect of fraud on public appointments. In fact, there is no discussion in the said judgment about the effect of fraud on public appointments. As a matter of fact, with due respect, the Division Bench skirted the main issue of fraud and rested its decision on die first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules in arriving at the decision that "a plain reading of this proviso makes it clear that the order cancelling the advice to be passed by the Commission and the subsequent order terminating the service of the candidate by the appointing authority should both be made within a period of one year from the date of the first advice." The point arising for consideration here is quiet different and hence the Malini's case cannot be pressed into service in support of the plea set up by the first respondent. 10. Yet another aspect to be considered is the rationale and logic in preventing candidates from applying in two different Districts. This has been explained by the Commission in the statement filed before us as directed. In the statement it has been stated that as per G.O. (MS) No. 154/71/PO dated 27.5.1971, decentralisation of recruitment to the lower ministerial cadres in various departments and teaching posts in General Education Department to the District Level was introduced with a view to avoid administrative inconvenience caused due to dearth of recruits in such cadres in Northern Districts of the State. It was with this intention that Government stipulated conditions restricting inter-district transfers also in G.O. dated 27.5.-1971. However, while implementing the decentralisation a host of practical problems cropped up before the commission. If candidates are allowed to apply to more than one district in response to the same Notification then they have to be allowed to write written tests in different Districts. Subsequently, if they find a place in the ranked list relating to more than one District they would have to he advised for recruitment from more than one District if their turn arises. The candidates who got appointed in one District would tend to leave the same when he gets advised from other Districts in due course, defeating the very purpose of the above mentioned G.O. The circumstances as detailed above would put the Commission in a quite embracing situation and cause administrative difficulties as well. The candidates who got appointed in one District would tend to leave the same when he gets advised from other Districts in due course, defeating the very purpose of the above mentioned G.O. The circumstances as detailed above would put the Commission in a quite embracing situation and cause administrative difficulties as well. The situation would assume fresh dimensions if it is allowed to prevail in the present day District wise selections. Therefore, the candidates are permitted to apply for one District only in respect of posts notified for more than one District in one notification. It is, however, pointed out that in order to avoid exigencies as detailed above and to facilitate a feasible selection process, the Commission issued orders to the effect that candidates are prohibited from applying to more than one District for the post notified in one and the same notification. Accordingly, in the notification inviting application for District wise selection specific instructions are incorporated to the effect that candidates should not send application for the post to more than one District. It is also specified that in case a candidate gets selection by applying to more than one District for the same post his/her selection is liable to be cancelled and that the candidates can also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. With regard to the condition in the notification restraining the candidates from applying to more than one District it has been pointed out that any applicant is free to choose any District for sending application. Therefore, the choice to apply for the posts is not denied. Only thing is that, the candidate is not entitled to apply for the same post in all the 14 Districts at a time. Here, the right of the candidate is not curtailed as he/she is not prevented from choosing the District of his/her choice. At the same time if every applicant is permitted to apply for all the Districts then the number of applications received by the Commission will be fourteen times the number of applications now being received, with the net result that the Commission will be doing a futile exercise of selection work in thirteen Districts, as a candidate can after all accept appointment only in any one District. It was considering all these aspects that the Commission have imposed the restriction on candidates from applying to more than one District in response to one notification. It was considering all these aspects that the Commission have imposed the restriction on candidates from applying to more than one District in response to one notification. This according to us is only a reasonable restriction imposed for achieving the purpose of G.O. dated 27.5.1971. This restriction, in our opinion does not amount to denial of opportunity of a candidate to apply to any post. It amounts only to a restriction on applying for the same post for a number of times equal to the number of Districts on the ground that selection is made on District wise. The above restrictions in the 'notification are reasonable and conform, to the spirit of decentralisation scheme envisaged to the Government order dated 27.5.1971. It is brought to our notice that the District wise selection has been in vogue since 1971 and has stood the test of time. In fact in O.P. No. 2490193 a prayer was made to declare that the 'Note' in Ext. P1 which prohibits candidates from applying to the post of L.D. Clerk (Various Departments) in more than one District pursuant to the notification as void and unconstitutional. The above prayer was not granted by this Court in the judgment dated 23.2.1993. The above judgment has been upheld by 'a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No. 612 of 1993 and the above judgment have been referred to by the learned single Judge in Para.7 of the impugned judgment. It is also relevant to note that in the O.P. the petitioner did not challenge the above provision. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The result is that the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein stands dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.