JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Appellant having been found ineligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board (in short, the Board) approached this Court in O. P. No. 18895 of 1996 for a direction commanding and compelling the Kerala Public Service Commission (in short the Commission) to interview him for the post of Assistant Engineer and to include him in the rank list. By an interim order, this court had permitted interview of the appellant. Subsequently, taking into consideration the rival stands, learned Single Judge found that petitioner was not entitled for any relief and dismissed the Original Petition, Judgment in which is the subject matter of this appeal. 2. Factual position, almost undisputed, is as follows: Appellant is a physically handicapped person. He is a B. Tech. degree holder in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Commission invited application for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the service of the Board. One among the general conditions reads as follows: "According to the Board Order no. R.L.I.-15934/73 dated 31st December 1973 physically handicapped persons will be considered for appointment under the Board only to such posts the duties attached to which can be satisfactorily discharged by them. The concessions allowable to physically handicapped persons are not applicable to the following posts and they are not eligible to apply for the post. All executive posts in the Electrical and Civil branches of the Board." In spite of the aforesaid stipulation, appellant applied for the post. He appeared for the written test and his name was included in the short list, but he was not invited for the interview. This Court was moved for interference. Commission took the stand that appellant was not invited for interview as he was not eligible in view of the clear stipulation in the notification. Post of Assistant Engineer is an executive post and a physically handicapped person cannot apply in terms of the general conditions in the notification extracted above. Appellant amended the Original Petition incorporating a challenge in respect of the said condition in the notification. It was submitted that the notification is based on Board's order dated 31st December 1973. That is an order granting certain concession to the physically handicapped persons. Same does not prohibit appointment of physically handicapped persons against executive posts in the Electrical and Civil branches of the Board. It was submitted that the notification is based on Board's order dated 31st December 1973. That is an order granting certain concession to the physically handicapped persons. Same does not prohibit appointment of physically handicapped persons against executive posts in the Electrical and Civil branches of the Board. Intention of the order referred to in the general condition operates in respect of concession granted in. masters like age concession, etc. It does not contain any prohibition. 3. Learned Single Judge observed that it was not the case of appellant that duties attached to the post can be satisfactorily discharged by a physically handicapped person. The post notified is the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), who has to undertake the works regarding transmission and distribution of electrical energy through towers and posts. In order to rectify the defects in the supply system, an Electrical Engineer may have to attend to the faults that may occur in the electric posts and towers, A physically handicapped person cannot attend these duties satisfactorily. 4. Learned counsel for appellant reiterated the stands taken before learned Single Judge and further contended that the Board's notification relating to recruitment, age relaxation and grace marks to physically handicapped persons is contained in para 2(i), which reads as follows: ''The physically handicapped persons will be considered for appointment only to such posts, the duties attached to which can be satisfactorily discharged by them. The concessions will not apply for appointment to the following posts: (a) All executive posts in the Electrical and Civil branches." Learned counsel for Board and the Commission submitted that after having responded to a notification and having participated, it is not open for him to turn round and state that the stipulation is bad. Concession referred to in said clause is the concession granted to physically handicapped persons that they will be considered for appointment to certain posts. It has been clearly stated that such concession will not apply for appointment to the executive posts. It was not the case of appellant before learned Single Judge that the post of Assistant Engineer is not an executive post. As there was a clear stipulation that the concession for physically handicapped persons to be considered for certain posts in the Board will not apply to executive posts, the stipulation does not suffer from any arbitrariness. 5. It was not the case of appellant before learned Single Judge that the post of Assistant Engineer is not an executive post. As there was a clear stipulation that the concession for physically handicapped persons to be considered for certain posts in the Board will not apply to executive posts, the stipulation does not suffer from any arbitrariness. 5. It has to be borne in mind that the Commission has to abide by the conditions contained in the notification. In District Collector and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (3) SCC 655 apex Court observed that when an advertisement mentions about a particular qualification and appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between 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. Further, in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another 1997 (4) SCC 18 it was observed by apex Court that an advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. In University of Cochin v. N. S. Kanjoonjamma and others 1997 (4) SCC 426 it was observed that having participated in the selection, applicant is estopped from challenging the correctness of the procedure Similar is the effect of the observations made by apex Court in Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others AIR 1995 SC 1088 . General condition stipulated in the notification ruled out consideration of cases of physically handicapped persons in respect of executive posts. That being the position, learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Original Petition. General condition stipulated in the notification ruled out consideration of cases of physically handicapped persons in respect of executive posts. That being the position, learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Original Petition. We find no merit in the writ appeal and same is accordingly dismissed.