JUDGMENT Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This Original Petition was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the decision in O.P. 2490 of 1993 as affirmed in W.A. 612 of 1993 since according to the learned Judge important constitutional questions raised in the Original Petition deserve to be considered and decided by a Division Bench. 2. Pursuant to a Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection to the post of Confidential Assistants Gr. II (Malayalam) in various; departments the petitioner made two independent applications. Both the applications were signed on 17th March 1986. In one of the applications the petitioner applied from Ernakulam District for selection in that District. In the other, for appointment in the Idukki District. The Notification issued in that behalf marked Ext. P-9, contained the following note among other notes: "(3) A candidate is not eligible to apply for the same post in more than one District. If a candidate applies to more than one District and thereby gets selected, his/her selection will be cancelled and disciplinary action will be taken against him/her." In both the applications signed on 17th March 1986, the petitioner applied for the same post thereby clearly breaching the above condition in the Notification. Column 17(6) of the application sought information whether the candidate; had applied for the same post from any other district and the petitioner answered 'No'. The answer was 'No' in both the applications. The petitioner was included in the ranked list for Ernakulam and advised for appointment to the post. She was also included in the ranked list for Idukki District. Subsequently on a complaint by one of the other persons included in the ranked list for Idukki, the matter was looked into and the Public Service Commission discovered that the petitioner had applied for selection to the same post in two Districts notwithstanding the bar contained in that behalf in the Notification and had also clearly stated a falsehood in column 17(b) of the respective applications that she has not applied from any other District and hence action had to be taken against her in terms of R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The advice of the petitioner was proposed to be cancelled. The petitioner was issued a notice Ext. The advice of the petitioner was proposed to be cancelled. The petitioner was issued a notice Ext. P-5 calling upon her to show cause why advice for her recruitment made on 7th September 1989 for appointment as Confidential Assistant Gr. II (Malayalam) should not be cancelled under R.3(c) of the General Rules in Part II in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The petitioner made an answer Ext. P-6 pretending that she had forgotten the details about various applications she had sent for getting employment and that she had not kept copies of the applications she had made. She expressed a wish to see her application in the original and to get copies thereof for making further representation. She also stated that the stipulation that a candidate should not apply in more than one District was unconstitutional and that being so on the ground of an unintentional violation of such a stipulation, the advice cannot be cancelled. Subsequently, she made another representation Ext. P-7 presumably after verifying the applications she had filed, stating that she had given answer to column No. 17 of the application form in the negative without knowing or appreciating the evil consequences that might follow. If she was aware of the said consequence, she would not have answered the column in the negative. She might have committed an error in her anxiety to get a job. Since she was eligible to be appointed it will be very painful if she was deprived of her job. She was informed by letter, dated 21st February 1990 that her advice was cancelled. Meanwhile a similar notice was issued to her regarding the cancellation of the advice made in Idukki District marked Ext. P-8, dated 19th December 1989. It is at that stage that the petitioner approached this court with this Original Petition seeking to quash the cancellation of her advise communicated to her under Ext. P-1 and Note (3) to the Notification inviting applications which provided that a candidate should not apply in more than one District to the same post and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to terminate the service of the petitioner. 3. It may be noted that it is pursuant to the Notification Ext. P-9 that the petitioner applied and got included in the ranked lis. 3. It may be noted that it is pursuant to the Notification Ext. P-9 that the petitioner applied and got included in the ranked lis. It is therefore pointed out by counsel for the Public Service Commission that the petitioner is estopped from challenging Note 3 in Ext. P-9 Notification. In an almost identical situation His Lordship Mr. Justice Mathews P. Mathew in O.P. 2490 of 1993 held that a person who had applied under the Notification and had participated in the selection process could not subsequently turn round and challenge the Notification. This decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. 62 of 1993. In the light of the decision in W.A. 612 of 1993 it is clear that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the condition in the Notification that the petitioner could not apply for the same post from two Districts. The above view is seen to be approved by another Division Bench in Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran 1999 (2) KLT 63 in which also a similar question was raised. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhej Shyam Singh v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1610 contended that such a restriction is unconstitutional and since the restriction is unconstitutional, theory of acquiescence or estoppel cannot be applied against the petitioner to preclude a challenge by her to Note 3 in Ext. P-9 Notification. Counsel also pointed out that the decision in Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran (1) has not referred to the decision in Radhey Shyam Singh 1999 (2) KLT 63 on considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh AIR 1997 SC 1610 it can be seen that that was a case where even at the threshold of the selection process, the candidate protested against the zonal system of selection that was sought to be adopted in the Notification issued and had actually participated in the selection process under protest. It is in the contest of that fact that the Supreme Court considered his contention that the zonal system of selection introduced, was violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and upheld that plea. But the Supreme Court also declared that the said decision striking down the zonal system of selection would have prospective operation. It is in the contest of that fact that the Supreme Court considered his contention that the zonal system of selection introduced, was violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and upheld that plea. But the Supreme Court also declared that the said decision striking down the zonal system of selection would have prospective operation. In the case on hand, there was no protest by the petitioner at any time before she was caught out in her act, until she was given a notice by the Public Service Commission to show cause why action should not be taken. We are therefore of the view that the petitioner having applied on the basis of the Notification and having participated in the selection process leading upto her advice by the Public Service Commission, is not entitled to turn and challenge the validity of the concerned Note in the Notification calling for selection. 5. It is also seen that when she filed up the two applications on the same day against the terms of Note 3 in Ext. P-9 Notification, the petitioner gave false information while filling up column 17 of the application. That column had specifically sought information whether the post to the petitioner was applying was a post in which there was a restriction against applying for more than one District and if it had such a restriction, whether she had made an application for the same post from any other District. It is while filling that column that the petitioner had held out that she had not applied from any other District. This she did both in the application filed for selection in Ernakulam and in the application for selection in the Idukki District. Both the applications were signed the same day and presumably filled up the same day. It is impossible to imagine that the petitioner was not aware of what she was doing or that she had not done this deliberately. Thus the petitioner has shown herself to be a person who is not honest and who apparently is prepared to practice deceit to achieve her ends. No doubt there may be the aspect that she was trying to get a job desperately and was making use of every available opportunity. But that does not justify her conduct in deliberately giving false information while filling up the application. No doubt there may be the aspect that she was trying to get a job desperately and was making use of every available opportunity. But that does not justify her conduct in deliberately giving false information while filling up the application. She would have got away with this, if the matter had not come to the notice of the Public Service Commission, in view of the complaint raised by another person who had secured a lower rank in the ranked list. We feel that this conduct of the petitioner justify our refusal to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in her favour. We feel that such acts should not be encouraged and people should not be given an impression that they could get away with such things if they approach the court after the selection process is completed. We are therefore satisfied that this is a fit case where we should decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran 1992 (2) KLT 63 the Division Bench had considered the question whether the restriction placed is valid. After calling for the relevant information and after referring to the history of introduction of this restriction, the Division Bench has held that there was no unconstitutionality attached to the restriction placed on the candidate that he should not apply for the same post from two Districts at the same time. We are in respectful agreement with the reasons given in Para.1.0 of that Judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India AIR 1997 S. C. 1610 was not referred to in that decision. That is true. But the justification for placing such a restriction and the object sought to be achieved by that restriction, are considered by the Division Bench in Kerala P. S. C. v. Hareendran 1992 (2) KLT 63. We are also inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the Public Service Commission that there is no pleading in the present case to hold that the restriction placed on making an application for selection in the above manner is arbitrary or unreasonable and hence unconstitutional. We are also inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the Public Service Commission that there is no pleading in the present case to hold that the restriction placed on making an application for selection in the above manner is arbitrary or unreasonable and hence unconstitutional. The factual data available in Radhey Shyam Singh's case AIR 1997 S. C. 1610 leading to the ratio in that decision, have not been made available in the present case. Moreover it is seen that this restriction has been in vogue for a considerable time in the matter of selection in this state. We are not satisfied that there is any justification for not accepting the observations of the Division Bench in Kerala P. S. C. v. Hareendran 1992 (2) KLT 63. On the whole, we are of the view that the petitioner does not deserve grant of any reliefs in this Original Petition. We therefore dismiss the Original Petition.