Judgment Cyriac Joseph, C. , J.—In response to the notification of the petitioner Karnataka Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Groups-A and B, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted their applications. In the application submitted for the preliminary examination they claimed benefit of reservation under Group-3B category. After the results of the preliminary examination were published the respondents submitted their applications for the main examination. In the said applications they claimed the benefit of reservation under Group-3A category. Their applications for appearing in the main examination were rejected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission on the ground that they had not submitted any documents in support of their claim for reservation under Group-B category. The Public Service Commission took the stand that, having claimed the benefit of reservation under Group-3B in the preliminary examination the respondents were not entitled to change the category and claim benefit of reservation under Group-3A category in the main examination. Aggrieved by the rejection of their applications, Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed Application Nos. 5102 and 5103 of 2005 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an interim order permitting the applicants to appear in the main examination subject to the final decision in the applications. Ultimately the applications were allowed as per Annexure-A order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the Tribunal. In Annexure-A order the Tribunal held that, it was due to a bona fide mistake that the applicants ticked the column for Group-3B category instead of Group 3A category and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case they should have been allowed to appear in the main examination. In taking the above view, the Tribunal relied on the circumstance that, even before submitting the application for preliminary examination, the respondents had obtained caste certificates issued by the Tahsildar stating that they belonged to Group 3A category. The Tribunal also pointed out that in the preliminary examination the respondents had obtained sufficient marks to qualify for appearing in the main examination both under Group-3A category and Group-3B category. The Tribunal directed the Public Service Commission to allow the applicants to write the main examination under Group-3A category. Aggrieved by Annexure-A the order passed by the Tribunal the Public Service Commission has filed this writ petition. 2. The Tribunal directed the Public Service Commission to allow the applicants to write the main examination under Group-3A category. Aggrieved by Annexure-A the order passed by the Tribunal the Public Service Commission has filed this writ petition. 2. While issuing notice to the respondents we directed the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission to make available to the Court in a sealed cover the marks obtained by the respondents in the main examination. Accordingly, the learned counsel has made available the marks obtained by the respondents in the main examination. It is seen that the first respondent has obtained 621 out 1800 marks and the second respondent has obtained 594 out of 1800 marks. It is seen that the cut off marks under Group-3A category is 738 and Group-3A Rural is 750. That means, even if the respondents are treated as Group-3A category candidates they are not eligible for being called for personality test. Therefore, the appearance of the respondents in the main examination or the marks obtained by them in the said examination on the strength of the interim order passed by the Tribunal is of no consequence as far as their claim for selection and appointment to the post is concerned. 3. However, in view of the view taken by the Tribunal regarding the strict observance of the instructions contained in the notifications issued by the Public Service Commission it has become necessary for us to examine whether the order of the Tribunal can be sustained or not. As observed earlier, the only ground on which the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondents to appear in the main examination is that, they had claimed the benefit of reservation in Group-3B category in the preliminary examination due to a bona fide mistake. The question is, whether even assuming that it was a bona fide mistake, the respondents were entitled to change the category after appearing in the preliminary examination. It is not disputed that the instructions to the candidates contained in the notification specifically stated that, request for change for reservation/optional subject/center originally indicated by them in the application will not be entertained by the Commission under any circumstances and that the candidate should carefully decide the choice of the center, optional subject and reservation claimed by them. It is not disputed that the instructions to the candidates contained in the notification specifically stated that, request for change for reservation/optional subject/center originally indicated by them in the application will not be entertained by the Commission under any circumstances and that the candidate should carefully decide the choice of the center, optional subject and reservation claimed by them. It is also not disputed that in the applications for the preliminary examination, the respondents had ticked the column for Group-3B category. It is only after the results to the preliminary examination were declared that the respondents claimed reservation under Group-3A category. On the face of the clear and unambiguous instructions contained in the notification issued by the Public Service Commission, the candidates cannot be allowed to change the category as claimed by the respondents. Even if it is due to a bona fide mistake that a wrong column was ticked by the candidate in the application for preliminary examination he is bound by such mistake and he is liable to face the consequences. If a different view is taken in the matter, it will unnecessarily lead to confusion in the office of the Public Service Commission in processing the applications and it will also open opportunities for manipulations in dealing with the fate of candidates appearing for such examinations. It is in public interest that the instructions contained in the notification of the Public Service Commission are strictly followed and scrupulously adhered to not only by the candidates but also by the Commission. In this view of the matter, the Public Service Commission cannot be faulted for rejecting the applications of the respondents for change of category and for permitting them to appear in the main examination as Group 3A category. Hence the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and any benefit arising out of the interim order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be denied to the respondents. 4. In taking the above view we are supported by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Y. C. Shivakumar and others v. B. M. Vijayashankar and others, (1992)2 SCC 206 : ( AIR 1992 SC 952 ). In paragraph 3 of the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has categorically held that even if the mistake was a bona fide mistake, larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach. In paragraph 3 of the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has categorically held that even if the mistake was a bona fide mistake, larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach. The Supreme Court observed that, what was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to minimise any possibility or chance of any abuse. According to the Supreme Court the fact that it was a bona fide mistake is not material. In the above mentioned case, the candidate wrote the roll number on other pages of the answer book in violation of the clear and explicit instructions on the first page of the answer book that the roll number shall not be written on any page other than the first page. The Supreme Court held that once the roll number is written on another page violating the instructions, the issue of bona fide and honest mistake did not arise. 5. We are also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in A. P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others, 2005 AIR SCW 5175 : (2006 (1) AIR Kar R 4). It is a case where the candidate left column-11 pertaining to previous employment totally blank. The notification issued by the Commission had specifically informed the candidates that giving any false /wrong information or suppression of material information would lead to cancellation of the candidature. The candidate also had filled up Annexure III which contained a declaration that he was not working in any Government/Public Sector/Private Sector. However, before the result of the selection process was notified the Public Service Commission learnt that the candidate had been employed and was working as a teacher and that he had suppressed that information by deliberately not filling column-11. After issuing show cause notice to the candidate, the candidature was cancelled. Though the candidate contended before the Supreme Court that it was pure inadvertence on the part of the candidate and not mala fides which lead to the non-disclosure of his employment status, the Supreme Court did not accept the contention. The Supreme Court also observed that, it is not open to the candidate to sit in the judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. The Supreme Court also observed that, it is not open to the candidate to sit in the judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. The Supreme Court held that there was suppression of relevant material and the Supreme Court rejected the explanation that the information sought was irrelevant and the omission emanated from inadvertence. 6. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 5102 and 5103 of 2005 is set aside. 7. Petition dismissed.