Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is an applicant to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, when the Public Service Commission invited applications as per Ext. P1 notification. In the rank list prepared the petitioner is ranked as 448. The petitioner submits that applications submitted by several others including the 3rd respondent were defective. Such applications were liable to be rejected in terms of Clause 17 of the general conditions in Ext. P1 notification. In spite of that such candidates were allowed to cure the defects in the applications and their applications were considered. About 300 persons ranked above him in the list are the persons thus allowed to cure the defects in the application. Such applications were in terms of the general conditions in the notification to be rejected. If those applications are rejected, necessarily the petitioner has a good chance for appointment. Therefore, consideration of all such defective applications and indulgence shown by the Public Service Commission to allow such applicants to cure the defects, prejudiced the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the list and seeking a direction to delete the names of such candidates whose applications at the first instance found to be defective or irregular. True there is a clause in the general conditions in the notification as follows: "17. Candidates are required to acquaint themselves with the instructions given in this notification for filling up the application form. They will not get opportunity to rectify any mistake in the application later. Candidates applying for different posts shall send each application in separate envelopes." In terms of this any defective application can be rejected by the P.S.C., that means an applicant who had made defective application cannot have any right to seek Consideration of his defective application or to make further application to cure the defect. But at the same time, this clause does not disable the P.S.C. to give all the candidates who have committed certain mistakes in the applications to cure the defects. This is a condition which can always be waived or relaxed by the P.S.C. because that does not affect any person who have not applied for. It is stated in the counter affidavit of the PSC as follows: "When the applications were scrutinised, it was learnt that many of the applications were defective. Some had only minor detects. This is a condition which can always be waived or relaxed by the P.S.C. because that does not affect any person who have not applied for. It is stated in the counter affidavit of the PSC as follows: "When the applications were scrutinised, it was learnt that many of the applications were defective. Some had only minor detects. Rejection of applications with minor defects would be unfair and these applications could not at the same time be admitted without obtaining some clarifications from the applications. hi order to have an equal treatment, the Commission decided to give an opportunity to all candidates who submitted defective applications to rectify the defects in their applications. No one was discriminated. It is submitted that the Commission did not a)In promise any of the conditions regarding Age Educational Qualifications, Experience etc. All that the Commission did was that an opportunity was given to the candidates to prove that they possessed the requisite qualifications. This was not in violation of any of the rules of Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure." Thus, what the P.S.C. shown is only fairness in allowing all the candidates to cure the minor defects wherever occurred without compromising the conditions regarding Age, Educational Qualifications, etc. Therefore, there arise no reason for interference when P.S.C. had shown uniformly such fairness to all the candidates who have been committed minor irregularities or defects. The Original Petition fails. Dismissed. No costs.