Ashok v. Kerala Public Service Commission — 1999 DIGILAW 644 (KER)

Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. The above Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the rejection of their applications for the post of Junior Health 1nspector Grade II in the Health Services Department for the reason that they have applied to the post in more than one District contrary to the instructions in the notification published for the post. 2. The contentions raised by all the writ petitioners are identical on facts. The following are the important contentions raised by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar on behalf of the petitioners. His argument was adopted by other learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, viz., Mr. Salil Narayanan, Mr. K.P. Dandapani, Mr. P.G. Rajagopalan, Mr. M.V. Bose, Mr. K. Ramakumar, Mr. John Joseph, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Mr. G. Prabhakaran, Mr. S. Ramesh and Mr. V.N. Achutha Kurup. According to the learned Senior Counsel, under the notification (Ext. P1), the vacancies in the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in all the fourteen districts had been notified. It was stipulated in the notification that the application should be addressed to the concerned District Officer of the Kerala State Public Service Commission (for short'the Commission'). The petitioners, who possess the qualifications to apply for the post, have applied on time to the District Officers of the Commission of the concerned district The written test for the post in all the fourteen districts was held on one and the same date and each of the petitioners appeared for the written test in one of the districts in respect of which he/she had applied. However, the petitioners were served with a communication from the Commission, in the form of memo of rejection, stating that their applications stand rejected on the ground that each of them had applied to the post in more than one district which, according to the Commission, was tabooed by the Gazette notification for the post. According to Mr. Nambiar - (a) Ext. P1 notification did not stipulate that a candidate for the post could apply only in respect of one district and, therefore, the petitioners had applied pursuant to Ext. P1 and that they did not have the advantage of looking into the Gazette notification. (b) They also filed a true copy of the Gazette notification and marked as Ext. P1 notification did not stipulate that a candidate for the post could apply only in respect of one district and, therefore, the petitioners had applied pursuant to Ext. P1 and that they did not have the advantage of looking into the Gazette notification. (b) They also filed a true copy of the Gazette notification and marked as Ext. P17 in O.P. 13928/1999, wherein there is a Note to the effect that candidates should apply only in respect of one district. (c) It is argued that the newspaper notifications did not prevent applications being sent for more than one district and the Gazette notification does not contemplate rejection of applications on the ground that applications were made for more than one district when the applicant had taken the examination only for one district. 3. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the judgment of the Division Bench, comprising of AR. Lakshmanan & K. Narayana Kurup, JJ. reported in Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran,1999(2) KLT 63, is distinguishable from the facts of this case; or, in any event, that judgment requires reconsideration; or, at least the restriction clause has to be read down, not to make it applicable to cases where only one test is taken by a candidate who had applied from more than one district, or the test is held for all the districts on one and the same date, in which case a candidate can take the examination only in one district. 4. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in O.P.I 576/1998, which was rendered by the learned Single Judge after the Division Bench rendered the judgment reported in 1999(2) KLT 63 dated 26.10.1998, wherein the learned Single Judge held as follows: "As the short notification did not contain the restriction clause, rejection of the petitioner's application is illegal. That violates the right of the petitioner to be considered for public employment under Art.16 of the Constitution of India." The said judgment is under appeal, viz., W. A. No. 896/1999, and the Division Bench has also stayed the operation of the judgment, in C.MP.No. 2191/1999 in the said appeal. 5. Mr. That violates the right of the petitioner to be considered for public employment under Art.16 of the Constitution of India." The said judgment is under appeal, viz., W. A. No. 896/1999, and the Division Bench has also stayed the operation of the judgment, in C.MP.No. 2191/1999 in the said appeal. 5. Mr. KeluNambiar submitted that in 1999(2) KLT 63 the Bench has considered the aspect of application being sent by a candidate to more than one district in the case of district-wise selection and that the reason for the restriction is analysed by the Division Bench in para 10 of the judgment and that the facts and features of this case would not come under the reasoning made in the judgment reported in 1999(2) KLT 63 and that the reasoning is on the contemplation of a situation where a candidate applying from more than one district, takes the test also from more than one district Arguing further, it is submitted that in the present case, the test is conducted for all the districts on one and the same date and candidates applying from different districts could take the examination only from one district and that the difficulties envisaged in the judgment cannot arise. According to the learned counsel, that makes all the difference between the subject matter of these Original Petitions and the subject matter of 1999(2) KLT 63. In any view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the rule restricting applications from only one district should be read down in its application to cases where the test is held for all the districts on one and the same date. 6. Thus, it is submitted, there is no restrictive clause in Ext. P1 notification and that Ext P17 Gazette notification does not contemplate rejection of applications on the ground that applications were made for more than one district and that the petitioners have applied in response to Ext. 6. Thus, it is submitted, there is no restrictive clause in Ext. P1 notification and that Ext P17 Gazette notification does not contemplate rejection of applications on the ground that applications were made for more than one district and that the petitioners have applied in response to Ext. P1 notification published in the newspapers and the applications were in compliance with the said notification and that the rule restricting applications from only one district should b s read down in its application to cases where the test is held for all the districts on one and the same date and the candidates takes the test only from one district and that the restrictive clause relating to applications applies only to cases where a candidates's name finds inclusion in rank-lists for more than one district. 7. The argument of the learned Senior Advocate was countered by Mr. O.V. Radhakrishnan, the Legal Retainer to the Commission. The Commission has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit with Exts. R1 (a) to R1(g). 8. The petitioners in O.P. 13928/1999 filed a reply affidavit. 9. Mr. O.V. Radhakrishnan countered the arguments and answered the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate by inviting our attention to the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit and also with reference to the documents filed and marked as Exts. R1 (a) to R1(g). Mr. Radhakrishnan submitted that the petitioners have applied for the post to more than one district in response to the notification, which is against the terms and conditions of the notification. Hence their applications were rejected and rejection memos were issued to them. Answering the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners did not have the advantage of looking into the Gazette notification, he submitted that that is not a justifiable excuse for violating the instructions in the notification and that the candidates ought to have perused the Gazette notification before filing the application to the Commission. Admitting that the short notification published in the newspapers did not contain the clause that application should not be sent to more than one district in response to the notification, the counsel for the Commission submitted that in the short notification it is clearly stated that for more details the candidates should refer to the Gazette notification. Admitting that the short notification published in the newspapers did not contain the clause that application should not be sent to more than one district in response to the notification, the counsel for the Commission submitted that in the short notification it is clearly stated that for more details the candidates should refer to the Gazette notification. 1n regard to the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in O.P.1576/1999, Mr. Radhakrishnan submitted that the said matter is under appeal in W.A. 896/1999 and the operation of the judgment is stayed as per the interim order in C.M.P. No. 2191/1999 and that the said judgment of the learned Single Judge is not final or conclusive. The learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioners and removal of their names from the ranked list is the consequence of their conduct in violating the instructions in the notification and the petitioners have applied to more than one district pursuant to the same notification, which is a sufficient reason to reject the applications of the candidates and invalidation of their answer scripts. 10. With reference to the judgment of the Division Bench in Hareendran's case (1999(2) KLT 63), Mr. Radhakrishnan submitted that the prohibitive conditions imposed by the Commission were challenged before this Court and the same has been up held by the judgment in W.A. 612/1993 and a later decision reported in 1999(2) KLT 63 and the decision in O.P. 2038/1990. The Special Leave Petition, S.L.P.(C) No. 12562/1999, filed against the decision of the Division Bench, comprising of P.K. Balasubramanyan & G. Sasidharan, JJ., in O.P.2038/1990, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 13.9.1999 and a true copy of the said order in the S.L.P. is produced and marked as Ext. R1(d). The said order of the Supreme Court is produced hereunder: "The petitioner knew that she could apply for a post in only one district. She applied for posts in two districts while stating in each of the forms that she had applied only for that district. This having been discovered after she was in employment, the employment has been cancelled. The High Court has declined her relief on her Writ Petition. We concur with the High Court. Having regard to her conduct, our discretion under Art.136 is not available to her. This having been discovered after she was in employment, the employment has been cancelled. The High Court has declined her relief on her Writ Petition. We concur with the High Court. Having regard to her conduct, our discretion under Art.136 is not available to her. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed." 11. Mr. Radhakrishnan invited our attention to paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Division Bench in O.P.No. 2038/1990, which has approved the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Hareendran's case. Para 6 reads as follows: "In Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran (1999(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 unconstitutionally 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 paragraph 10 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 SC 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 (1999 (2) KLT 63). We are also inclined to accept the submission to 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 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 (1999 (2) KLT 63)". 12. At the time of hearing, Mr. 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 (1999 (2) KLT 63)". 12. At the time of hearing, Mr. Radhakrishnan in support of his contentions relied on the decisions reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese, ILR (1977) 1 Kerala 523, Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar, (ILR 1978(2) Kerala, 241, Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasad Chandran, 1978 KLN 305, R.K. V. Motors & Timbers v. R.T.O., 1982 KLT 166 (FB), Ranga swamy v. P.S.C, 1982 KLT 574, Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C.,1997(2) KLJ 477, State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, (1997) 6 SCC 574 and Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Department, (1999) 4 SCC 458. He also cited the decisions reported in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722, B. K. Sreenivasan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1987 SC 1059 and M/s. PankajJain Agencies v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 360. 13. Apart from inviting our attention to various rulings, Mr. Radhakrishnan also took us through the notifications and other Exhibits filed along with the additional counter affidavit. 14. We shall now consider the rival submissions. Before analysing the judgments cited, it is beneficial to look into the Exhibits filed along with the additional counter affidavit. Ext. R1 (a) is the Kerala Gazette dated 2.4.1996. applications were invited for selection to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II as per notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 2.4.1996 in English and in Malayalam. It is submitted that a short notification would be published in dailies for the purpose of informing the prospective candidates that applications were invited for selection to the post indicated therein and instructing the candidates to refer to the Gazette for more details. It is stated that the short notification would be prepared, both in English and Malayalam, and forwarded to the Public Relations Department of the Government for publication and the publication is made by the Public Relations Department of the Government. Clause (2) of Ext. It is stated that the short notification would be prepared, both in English and Malayalam, and forwarded to the Public Relations Department of the Government for publication and the publication is made by the Public Relations Department of the Government. Clause (2) of Ext. R1(a) reads thus: "(2) applications should not be sent to more than one district in response to this Notification. If applications are sent contrary to the above direction, and if he/she is selected his/her name will be removed from the ranked list and disciplinary action will be taken against him/her. Candidates should submit application for this post to the concerned District Officer of the Commission and should note the name of that District against the relevant column in the application. The address of the District Officers to which applications are to be sent is furnished in column (9) of the notification." 15. A true translation of the relevant portion of the short notification Ext. P1 is produced and marked as Ext. R1(b), which reads thus: "KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SHORT NOTIFICATION No. r & a 1(3)9025/96/GW advt. No.6/96 Last date 15.5.1996 recruitment applications are invited from qualified candidates for recruitment to the following posts. Model applications form is appended to the Gazette notification. applications in the prescribed form either typed or printed in Malayalam or English in good quality white paper of size 30 x 20 cros should be used. applications not in the prescribed form or size and those submitted in the model form cut out from news papers, Public Service Commission bulletin and other publications will be summarily rejected. The name of the post, category, number and Institution/ Department should be clearly noted at the top of the envelope. No application fee. XXX XXX XXX Category No. 39/96, 40/96, 50/96, 51/96 Among the districts applications are invited candidate will have to submit applications to the District Officer of the P.S.C. of the district to which he desires appointment. Candidates applying to posts under general recruitment belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes will be given age relaxation benefit admissible under law. XXX XXX XXX Category No. 39/96, 40/96, 50/96, 51/96 Among the districts applications are invited candidate will have to submit applications to the District Officer of the P.S.C. of the district to which he desires appointment. Candidates applying to posts under general recruitment belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes will be given age relaxation benefit admissible under law. For more details, refer to the concerned Gazette notification." It has been specifically stated in the above short notification that the proforma of the application form has been annexed to the Gazette notification and that the candidates have also been specifically warned that application forms not in the proforma or the size specified in the Gazette and those cut from the newspaper dailies, etc. will be rejected summarily. 16. The instructions and the warning mentioned in Ext. R1(b) short notification would clearly show that a person intending to apply for the post must necessarily refer to the notification published in the Gazette for taking proforma of the application form. 1n the short notification, it has also been stated that "for more details refer to the Gazette notification". The instruction that "for more details refer to the Gazette notification" is a general instruction to the candidates and cannot reasonably be construed as relating to the age condition alone as contended by some of the counsels. In our view, the Commission is competent to issue instructions for governing selection for appointment to the public services. Such instructions are issued in large public interest, which demands insistence of observation of instructions rather than its breach. The direction in the Gazette notification that a candidate shall not apply for selection for the same post to more than one district pursuant to the same notification is clear, unambiguous and explicit. In fact, it was violated by all the candidates. Therefore, the rejection of the applications cannot be construed or characterised as arbitrary. The direction in the Gazette notification that a candidate shall not apply for selection for the same post to more than one district pursuant to the same notification is clear, unambiguous and explicit. In fact, it was violated by all the candidates. Therefore, the rejection of the applications cannot be construed or characterised as arbitrary. It is stated that while implementing the decentralisation policy, a host of practical problem cropped up before the Commission and the Commission considering all aspects of the matter, took a decision to permit candidates to apply for one district only in respect of posts notified for more than one district in one notification, which, according to the learned counsel for the Commission, is intended to facilitate a proper and feasible selection process and to achieve the object of decentralisation policy evolved by the Government in Ext. RI (c) G.O. dated 27.5.1971. As already noticed, the prohibitive conditions were challenged before this Court and the same has been upheld by the judgments in W. A.No. 612/1993,1999 (2) KLT 63,0.P. No. 203 8/1990 and in SLP (C) No. 12562/1999 filed against the judgment in O.P.No. 2038/1990. 17. In fact the restrictive clause has been included as item 9 of Clause 25(b) of Part II of the general conditions appended to the notification inviting applications for the post, (Ext. R1(e) ), which is as follows: 1'25(a) (b) The application having one or more of the following defects will be summarily rejected 1. Not qualified. 2. Under-aged. 3. Over-aged. 4. Unsigned. 5. applications which are not in the prescribed form and size as required in paragraph 12 6. Application received not in response to Gazette notification. 7. Late applications. 8. If the name of post applied for cannot be correctly gathered from the details furnished by the applicant. 9. If the candidates apply to more than one District (for district-wise selections for a post in response to the same notification. 10. applications unaccompanied by proper documents in proof of prescribed educational qualifications, date of birth, community and experience claimed and any other specific stipulations. (c) There will not be any appeal against the rejection of applications made on any ground". 10. applications unaccompanied by proper documents in proof of prescribed educational qualifications, date of birth, community and experience claimed and any other specific stipulations. (c) There will not be any appeal against the rejection of applications made on any ground". It is stated that the above general conditions are published along with every notification as Part II of the notification, which are given ample publicity in each issue of the Commission Bulletin and the short notification is issued only to alert the prospective candidates to refer to the Gazette notification for applying for the selection. The contention of the learned counsel for the Commission that publishing the notification Part I and II in various newspapers would be next to impossibility as the Commission is notifying for about 500 posts every year merit acceptance. 18. Our attention was invited to Ext. R1(f), the application form. The relevant portions of Ext. R1(f) is extracted below: "KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM Name of Post Scale of pay '.. Department/ Company/ Corporation/Board/Local Authority Gazette Date Note.- (1) Leave 5 cm. space on the top. of the application form. (2) Furnish fall and correct information. Candidates should read the relevant Gazette notification inviting applications before filling up the application form. Enclose self-attested true copies of documents in proof of the claim". Column 8(b) of the application form reads as follows: "8(b) - Have you applied for the post in any other District as per this notification (Answer 'Yes' or -No')" The candidate has to give a declaration in the following terms: "I hereby declare that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and I am in possession of the original documents in proof of the claim made in this application". Under the Note and the declaration in Ext. R1(f), the candidates are sufficiently warned, instructed and informed of the prohibitive clause regarding applying for more than one district for the same post pursuant to the same notification. We are unable to countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were guided by the short notification and applied for the post pursuant to the same and the said contention is liable to be rejected as untenable. 19. The following general conditions notified as Part II of the notification are extracted hereunder: "17. We are unable to countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were guided by the short notification and applied for the post pursuant to the same and the said contention is liable to be rejected as untenable. 19. The following general conditions notified as Part II of the notification are extracted hereunder: "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. 23. The application forms shall be filed up in ink or typewritten and signed by the candidate. Application submitted contrary to the instruction will be rejected on that ground itself. All the columns in the application shall be filled up in full. No column shall be left blank or filled up by dots or hyphen or by any other mark. If any of the column is irrelevant in the case of candidate that column shall be filed up by the entry "N.A.", ie., Not Applicable. 25. (a) deleted. (b) The application having one or more of the following defects will be summarily rejected: 1 to 8 deleted. 9. If the candidates apply to more than one District (For District-wise selection) for a post in response to the same notification. (c) There will not be any appeal against the rejection of applications made on any ground. 29. Warning Candidates who are found guilty of the following items of misconduct shall be liable for disqualification for being considered for a particular post of debarment from applying to the Commission either permanently or for any period or the invalidation of their answer scripts or products in a written/ practical test or the initiations of criminal or other proceedings against them or their removal or dismissal from office or the ordering of any other disciplinary action against them if they have been appointed or any one or more of the above. (i) and (ii) deleted (iii) Making of any false statement in the application form or any document produced in connection with selection or suspension of any material fact relevant to the selection from the Commission". 20. As already noticed from Ext. (i) and (ii) deleted (iii) Making of any false statement in the application form or any document produced in connection with selection or suspension of any material fact relevant to the selection from the Commission". 20. As already noticed from Ext. R1(f), the candidates were instructed to refer to the Gazette notification for details and against the query in Column 8(b) of the application "whether you have applied to more than one district" the candidates have noted as "No". We have perused many applications filed by the petitioners. The candidates, bearing Nos. 26740, 59240, 59130, 59971, 59218 and 26498, have noted as "No" in their application, though they have applied to more than one district. Therefore, it can be inferred that the petitioners were aware of the restriction in the notification and they have wilfully suppressed the fact in the application. Since the written test was conducted on the same day, they could not attend the written test in more than one district, which is co-incidental. They could take the examination only in one district for the reason that the test in all districts was conducted on the same day and not that they themselves decided to take the examination in only one district. The candidates, who have applied to more than one district and who answered "No" to query in column 8(b) of the application, have made a false declaration before the Commission, which conduct, in our opinion, is deliberate and it disentitles them for any discretionary relief from this Court. 21. It is also argued by the petitioners that the Commission has no power to lay down a restriction like the one made in Note 2 of the notification. The said submission has no force. The Commission is a Constitutional Authority and it derives its power under Art.320 of the Constitution of India for discharging the functions prescribed thereunder. 22. A Division Bench of this Court, comprising of Subramonian Poti and George Vadakkel, JJ., in the decision reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese, ILR (1977) 1 Kerala 523, has held that it cannot be said that the Commission has no power to prescribe the conditions that the applications should be accompanied by original chalan receipts and if the Commission has prescribed this as a requirement, non-compliance therewith must result in rejection of the application. 23. 23. In the decision reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar, ILR 1978 (2) Kerala, 241, Balakrishna Eradi, J. speaking for the Bench held that the as much as the candidate had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the notification regarding production of the documents in proof of possession by her of the prescribed qualifications along with the application submitted by her to the Commission, the Commission was acting fully within its rights in rejecting the application and, therefore, no interference was called for with the impugned orders passed by the Commission and that the conditions stipulated by the Commission were in no way unreasonable and such being the case, the Commission was fully within its competence and jurisdiction to determine whether the application submitted by the candidate was a valid one in the sense of its having conformed to the stipulations contained in the notification and reject the same on its being found that those conditions were not satisfied. 24. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasad Chandran,1978 KLN 305, the applicants were required to show the date of birth in two columns in the application. The writ petitioner omitted to fill up one of the columns. The application was rejected by the Commission and the validity of the said rejection was questioned before this Court. Gopalan Nambiar, C.J., speaking for the Bench held thus:- " Whatever be the reason for the strictness and the rigour of the Rule enjoined by the Public Service Commission, the instructions in the notification and in the application form appear to us to be clear and categoric omission to fill up any of the entries in the application form must be visited with the consequence prescribed". 25. In the decision reported in Rangaswamy v. P.S.C., 1982 KLT 574, the candidates were asked to send the application in a form costing Rs. 51- and copy in another form bearing 50 paise stamp. The candidate forwarded both the applications to the Commission through I.G. of Police, who, by mistake, forwarded only application with 50 paise stamp. The application was rejected and the validity of the said rejection was questioned before this Court. Khalid, J., (as he then was), speaking for the Bench observed thus: "The Public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification inviting applications. The application was rejected and the validity of the said rejection was questioned before this Court. Khalid, J., (as he then was), speaking for the Bench observed thus: "The Public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification inviting applications. It will not be within the province of this Court to issue directions to the Commission to whittle down the vigour of the conditions and stipulations. The Commission will be within its rights rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification. The Commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff has to sort the applications submitted in proper form, process them and take follow-up action. No discretion is given to the Commission or freedom to the staff to relax the conditions in the notification. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone irregularities or omissions. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending other extenuating considerations. The Commission with its heavy workload, has to adhere strictly to its norms and its working can be streamlined only by strict adherence to the norms set by it. A case here or a case there may invoke sympathy or may deserve sympathy, as in this case. But it is not within the province of this Court to extend any sympathy in such cases. The Public Service Commission is a high constitutional authority. This Court will normally be loathe in interfering with its decisions, unless strong grounds are made out like mala fides etc." 26. Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206, is also a case where there is violation of the instruction issued by the Commission. In that case, roll number was written not only in the space provided there for on the cover page of the answer book but also on all the pages inside the answer book contrary to clear instructions. The Supreme Court held that the Commission was justified in not evaluating such answer book and that opportunity of hearing need not be afforded to the candidate by the Commission before taking such action and that the action is not in the nature of punishment for any misconduct. 27. The Supreme Court held that the Commission was justified in not evaluating such answer book and that opportunity of hearing need not be afforded to the candidate by the Commission before taking such action and that the action is not in the nature of punishment for any misconduct. 27. In the decision reported in Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C.,1997 (2) KLJ 477, a Division Bench of this Court, comprising of K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Patnaik, JJ., held that the rejection of the application received beyond the last date by the Commission was valid and that the delay cannot be condoned. 28. State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, (1997) 6 SCC 574, is a case of an ineligible person called for interview on an interim order of the Court and provisionally selected. 1n that case, the candidate acquired the qualification necessary for appointment only after the cut-off date albeit prior to starting of interviews. He was called for interview only because of an interim order of the High Court in the Writ Petition filed by him, selected and provisionally appointed subject to the final decision in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed on account of the ineligibility of the respondent for appointment and thereafter his services were discontinued. The Supreme Court held that even though the respondent had put in several years of service and was even confirmed, a sympathetic view of the situation could not be taken to grant him continuance of service as the cut-off date for completing the requirements relating to qualifications could not be ignored in an individual case. 29. In this case, an argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rule restricting application from only one district should be read down in its application to cases where the test is held for all the districts on one and the same date. The said contention has to rejected in view of the very recent ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Department, (1999) 4 SCC 458). In this case, the appellant in one of the appeals submitted that Art.285 was intended to protect public revenues; the shares of the appellant companies being fully owned by the Central Government, their funds were public revenues. of India Ltd. v. Secy., Revenue Department, (1999) 4 SCC 458). In this case, the appellant in one of the appeals submitted that Art.285 was intended to protect public revenues; the shares of the appellant companies being fully owned by the Central Government, their funds were public revenues. It was, therefore, necessary to read down the provisions of S.20) and S.12 of the Act to exclude there from all but private owners and lessees of land. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention as follows: "The question of reading down comes in if it is found that these provisions are ultra vires as they stand. We have held that these provisions are not ultra vires because Art.285 does not apply when the property that is to be taxed is not of the Union of India but of a distinct and separate legal entity. Each of the appellants being companies registered under the Companies Act, they are entities other than the Union of India. The question of reading down does not, therefore, arise." 30. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Commission that the Commission had also not taken a decision to conduct written test for various posts under district-wise selection on the same day and hence the restriction cannot be read down at all as requested by the counsel for the petitioners. Furthermore, if the restriction is read down, then applying the penalty clause for violation of the condition will become uncertain leading to arbitrariness. In fact, the Division Bench in the decision reported in 1999 (2) KLT 63 has held that the restriction imposed is reasonable restriction, which does not amount to denial of opportunity of a candidate to apply to any post. 31. In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722, the Supreme Court has ruled that the publication in the Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. 32. 31. In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722, the Supreme Court has ruled that the publication in the Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. 32. In B.K. Sreenivasan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 1059, the Supreme Court held that publication of a notice in the Gazette inviting the attention of the public to the display and the availability for inspection of the Plan and particulars was all that was contemplated by the provisions providing for publication and that the publication of a notice in the notice in the Gazette would amount to sufficient compliance with the requirements of publication. 33. M/s. PankajJain Agencies v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 360 - Under S.25(1) of the Customs Act and the notification No. 142/86 dated 13.12.1986 - mode of publication prescribed was notified. In compliance with the said provisions, the notification was published in the official gazette. The Supreme Court held that there was compliance of prescribed made and that the notification did acquire elements of operativeness and enforceability. 34. Mr. K. Ramakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P. 16515/1999, submitted that the advertisement in the newspaper is a representation and the Commission cannot go back on the notification and say that the petitioners to look into the Gazette. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the rulings referred to above and also on the basis of the conditions mentioned in the Gazette notification. 35. Mrs. Pearly Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. 15286/1999 submitted that the petitioner has answered in the application against column 8(b) "Have you applied to more than one District" as "Yes". Therefore, a memo was issued to him to make the Commission to know about the District to which he wants to be appointed and to produce a declaration stating whether he had applied to more than one district for the post. In reply to the memo, the petitioner has produced a declaration stating that he had applied only to Kollam district in response to the notification. As directed by this Court, the original reply and the application form were placed before us for verification. On verification, it is seen that the above petitioner had applied to three districts. In reply to the memo, the petitioner has produced a declaration stating that he had applied only to Kollam district in response to the notification. As directed by this Court, the original reply and the application form were placed before us for verification. On verification, it is seen that the above petitioner had applied to three districts. Hence, the contention that the petitioner has done nothing to supress the fact that he has applied to more than one district is incorrect. The petitioner has violated the instructions in the notification and has made incorrect statement knowing it to be false in his reply to the memo issued by the Commission. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 36. The contention of the petitioners that they were not given opportunity of hearing before the applications are actually rejected has to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1999(2) SCC 206, which says that opportunity of hearing need not be afforded to the candidate by the Commission before taking such action and that the said action is not in the nature of any punishment for any misconduct. Therefore, rejection of the application on the ground of violation of the condition of the notification is not at all violative of Arts.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as alleged by some of the petitioners. 37. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the request now made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment reported in 1999 (2) KLT 63 required re-consideration or at least the restriction clause has to be read down cannot at all be accepted. The principles laid down in the said decision was accepted by another Division Bench in O.P. 203 8/1990 dated 16.6.1999 and later affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 12562/1999 filed against the judgment in O.P. 2038/1990, by order dated 13.9.1999. The grounds raised in the Original Petitions and the contentions put forward at the time of hearing by the petitioners are devoid of any force or merit and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Original Petitions. Accordingly, all the Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed and hence they are dismissed. No costs.