Judgment :- The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in relating to the impugned order reference Rc No.A1/4747/2007, dated 11. 2008 an quash the same and further direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade II police constable. 2. Ms. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is stated to have applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable based on the advertisement issued by the respondent in Na.Ka No.A/4747/2007 dated 13. 2008, which relates to the recruitment of Grade Ii Police Constable Men/Women for the year 2007. 4. It is seen that the said Notification, calling for application gives a format of application and in Clause VII, it states that along with application, only the xerox copies of the documents, relating to the age, educational qualification etc., are to be enclosed. The educational qualification required is that as per the old regulation, SSLC and as per new regulation, the candidate should have passed X Standard 5. The case of the petitioner is that he has passed X Standard. In the original application of the petitioner along with the documents produced by the learned Government Advocate, on direction from this Court, it is seen that along with the application, which was submitted by the petitioner on 14. 2008, he has enclosed a xerox copy of Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 16. 1995, in which, he has secured the following marks: Tamil : 72 English : 33 Mathematics : 91 Science : 55 Social Studies : 61 Total 312 6. Since he has secured only 33 marks in English, he has failed and subsequently, has appeared in March 1999 and passed in English paper, having scored 42 marks. The authority has also issued mark sheet on 16. 1999. It is seen that the xerox copy of which has been enclosed by the petitioner along with the application. 7. In the written examination conducted by the respondent on 8. 2008, the petitioner got selected for the next test viz., Physical Endurance Test, Physical Efficiency Test. The petitioner was declared selected in the physical test. Thereafter, the respondent has conducted the certificate verification and during that time, the petitioners application was rejected under the impugned order stating that he does not possess required qualification. 8. 2008, the petitioner got selected for the next test viz., Physical Endurance Test, Physical Efficiency Test. The petitioner was declared selected in the physical test. Thereafter, the respondent has conducted the certificate verification and during that time, the petitioners application was rejected under the impugned order stating that he does not possess required qualification. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that before he participated in the test he has realized that he has lost his original SSLC mark sheet, which was issued by the authorities on 16. 1995, even though a xerox copy of the same was enclosed along with the original application. He immediately applied to the Department of Government Examination, Madras-6 to issue duplicate copy of SSLC mark sheet. On the date of certificate verification, the petitioner has produced all the original certificates except the original SSLC mark sheet dated 16. 1995, since at the time the authorities have not issued the duplicate certificate. It was due to that reason, the impugned order came to be passed holding that the petitioner was not qualified. 9. The case of the petitioner is that subsequently, the petitioner got duplicate certificate from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Tamil Nadu on 111. 2008, which is the duplicate of 16. 1995. According to the petitioner, since the selection process has not been completed and now that he has got the duplicate copy, he should be permitted to participate in the selection process by producing the original certificate, which he has obtained by way of duplicate from the authority. 10. On the other hand, it is opposed by the learned Government Advocate that as per the Notification, after a person has passed in the written examination and Physical Endurance Test and Physical Efficiency Test, at the time of certificate verification, it is the duty of the petitioner to produce all the original certificates on the day prescribed. In the present case, by a communication dated 11. 2008, which was in accordance with the prescription in the paper publication issued by the respondent, the petitioner was directed to produce the original certificates including the certificate showing the educational qualification. In the present case, by a communication dated 11. 2008, which was in accordance with the prescription in the paper publication issued by the respondent, the petitioner was directed to produce the original certificates including the certificate showing the educational qualification. Therefore, the said communication, calling upon the petitioner to produce the original certificates, is in accordance with the Notification and if the petitioner has failed to produce the same, he cannot be permitted to produce it once again at a later point of time and it would amount to direct the respondent to act against its own instructions. 11. It is no doubt true that the petitioner at the time of submitting his application, has enclosed xerox copy of the certificate of 16. 1995. But it is equally mandatory on the part of the petitioner to comply with all the requirements as per the Notification issued by the respondent. 12. In the said Notification apart from stating that in Clause VII that xerox copies of the certificates are to be enclosed with the application Clause IX, it is stated as follows: Thereby making it obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce original certificates for verification. Since admittedly the petitioner has not produced the original certificate, it is in the violation of the condition. 13. It is also relevant to point out at this stage the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. M. Vennila vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in ( 2006 (3) CTC 449 ). The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the Notification of TNPSC dated 7. 2005 inviting applications for direct recruitment to post of Assistant Surgeon has held that adherence to terms and conditions cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to named authority in clear language. It is also held that principles relating to strict adherence to terms and conditions contained in information brochure/instructions relating to filling up of application forms for employment would equally apply to cases relating to forms for employment would equally apply to cases relating to admission of students to various courses in educational institutions. It is also held that the mistakes found in application cannot be allowed to be rectified or corrected in the absence of specific Rules or Provisions in instruction to candidates or in information brochure permitting such corrections or rectification. It is also held that the mistakes found in application cannot be allowed to be rectified or corrected in the absence of specific Rules or Provisions in instruction to candidates or in information brochure permitting such corrections or rectification. It is further held that the Court has no power to modify/relax terms and conditions in instruction to candidates or in brochure. 14. That was a case where Notification required the candidates to sign in all the relevant places. However, the petitioner therein did not sign the declaration in the application form. Therefore, her claim came to be rejected. It was in those circumstances considering the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the mistake is curable, by relying the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s G.J. Fernandez vs State of Karnataka reported in ( AIR 1990 SC 958 ) and M/s Poddar Steel Corporation vs M/s Ganesh Engineering Works reported in ( AIR 1991 SC 1579 ), the Division Bench has rejected the contention, which is as follows: 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court viz., (i) M/s G.J. Fernandez vs State of Karnataka reported in ( AIR 1990 SC 958 ) and (ii) M/s Poddar Steel Corporation vs M/s Ganesh Engineering Works reported in ( AIR 1991 SC 1579 ), and contended that failure to sign below the Column24 and below the declaration column is curable. In view of the above submission, we verified the factual position in the above referred to decisions. It is not in dispute that both the decisions relate to submission of Tender Forms. On going through the factual details and the ratio laid down therein, in view of the specific details furnished in the Information Brochure and Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, we are satisfied that the same are not helpful to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that both the decisions relate to submission of Tender Forms. On going through the factual details and the ratio laid down therein, in view of the specific details furnished in the Information Brochure and Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, we are satisfied that the same are not helpful to the petitioners. As a matter of fact, in the latter decision, viz., M/s Poddar Steel Corporation vs M/s Ganesh Engineering Works reported in ( AIR 1991 SC 1579 ), the defect that was pointed out by the Government Agency was that though the earnest money under the terms of tender notice was permitted to be deposited only by cash or by demand draft drawn on the State bank of India, the payment of earnest money was sent by way of certified cheque of Union Bank of India and in that situation, the Supreme Court after pointing out that the payment of earnest money by certified cheque of Union Bank of India, drawn on its own Branch could be treated as sufficient compliance of the terms. Their Lordships have also held that it could not be said that the authority inviting the tenders could not waive the literal compliance of such a condition and accept the tender especially when it was in its interest not to reject the bid which was the highest. In our case, in all these writ petitions, the petitioners have not signed the applications, some in two places and others below the declaration. In such circumstances, as said earlier, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to their stand. 15. The Division Bench has also held in paragraph-19, which is stated as follows: The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs Sanjay Gulati, ( AIR 1983 SC 580 : 1983(96) LW 172 (S.N) Following the same, a Division Bench of this Court has also observed in Rathnaswamy, Dr.A. Vs Director of Medical Education, (1986 WLR 207), that the rules and norms of the prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. And S.P. Prasanna vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1994 WLR 624). The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. And S.P. Prasanna vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1994 WLR 624). The same principle is reiterated in the case of Dr. M. Ashiq Nihmathullah vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, ( 2005(5) CTC 26 :2005 WLR 697). It is clear that prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission" 16. Further the Division Bench has referred the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana in Rahul Prabhakar vs Punjab Technical University, Jalandar reported in (AIR 1998 P & H 18) and paragraph-23 of the Full Bench Statement is as follows: 23. Regarding the effect of Information Brochure, the Full Bench has concluded that- 11. The cumulative effect of the above well enunciated principles of law, is that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they used pre-emptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in such highly competitive entrance examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of the brochure would be per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to the terms of the brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of the brochure, more particularly, where the cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure. "13.... The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure. "13.... Repeated affirmation of the principle by different Full Benches of this court while relying upon the judgments of the Honble Apex Court, unambiguously contains the dictum that the brochure declared before the entrance test has the force of law, strict adherence to its terms and conditions is of paramount consideration and terms and conditions including the cut off date cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to a given authority by use of unambiguous language...." Finally, their Lordships have concluded: "16. In view of the above decision the only unassailable and veritable view is that a candidate to such entrance test, in view of the terms and conditions of the brochure, afore-referred, is obliged to submit all the certificates required to annex along with the application and submit the same complete in all respects before the cut off date. In default thereto, no obligation is imposed upon the authorities concerned to entertain such application or to grant seat to that candidate". 17. Considering another request of the petitioner therein that the mistake of the petitioner in not signing in the declaration is bona fide and she must be given one more opportunity to rectify the defect, the Division has rejected in Paragraph-27, which is as follows: 27. "Yet, another argument was made to the effect that inasmuch as failure to sign below the column 24 as well as below the declaration is a bona fide mistake and instead of rejecting the applications, the Commission ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the petitioners to rectify the same. While meeting the above contention, learned Advocate General submitted that in the absence of any specific Rule or Rules or provision in the Instructions, etc., to Candidates or clause in Information Brochure, the applicants cannot be permitted to rectify the defect. First of all, as rightly pointed out, if it is permitted, the selection schedule and the process of examinations cannot be adhered to. Hence, the argument that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake in the application form cannot be accepted. 18. First of all, as rightly pointed out, if it is permitted, the selection schedule and the process of examinations cannot be adhered to. Hence, the argument that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake in the application form cannot be accepted. 18. Ultimately, the Division Bench has held that no leniency or indulgence can be shown to the candidates who have not signed in the applications. 19. Applying the dictum laid down by the Division Bench as stated above, in the present case, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-production of the original mark sheet dated 16. 1995 at the time of certificate verification was bona fide and therefore, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to rectify the same as decided above. Such indulgence would amount to direct the respondent to act against its own instructions, which is not permissible in law. 20. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.