Judgment : By consent of both sides, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. 2. The writ petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1189 and 1990 of 2010 are one of the applicants seeking for the Selection of Petrol/ Diesel Rural Retail Outlet (Kisan Seva Kendra) Dealers Operator ship in Sankarapuram based on the advertisement made by’the respondents in “Dinakaran” news paper on 25.8.2009. According to the petitioner, as per Clause No. 4 of the publication made in the newspaper, the partnership deed should be produced at the time of interview and he was sent a call letter on 5.1.2010 calling him to attend for an interview on 22.1.2010. Subsequently, by letter dated 8.1.2010, his application was rejected as ineligible in view of the fact that the partnership deed was not enclosed along with application. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition on the ground that the rejection was not in accordance with publication made in Dinathanthi paper. 3. The Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein they have stated as follows: “ ......Clause 4 of the advertisement calls upon all the partners to submit separate applications, but clubbed together and if called for interview, to appear for the interview together. They should submit a copy of the Partnership Deed at the time of interview. However, it is also to be noted that it is specifically mentioned in the application format vide Item 2 “In case of partnership, please given name of each of the partners and attach registered/proposed partnership, please given name of each of the partners and attach registered/proposed partnership deed. Application of all the partner (s) should be attached together while submission.” Therefore, they would contend that when there is a specific condition mentioned in the advertisement, the non inclusion of the partnership deed vitiates the rejection of application, and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to seek remedy. Further, they would contend that the original call letter was issued inadvertently and immediately it was rectified by sending the impugned order within two days and hence, there is no reason for the petitioner; Further, they would contend that only during the scrutlnisation, failure to comply with the conditions in getting partnership deed was noticed and immediateiy it was conveyed to the petitioners. Further, if there is any default or failure in submitting such application, the Corporation has got a right to reject the same. 4. Further, they would contend that as per the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in (2006) 3 MLJ 376 : 2006 WLR 574 and (2007) 1 MLJ 820 : 2006 (5) CTC 529 , the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the application for agency is required to submit the document in accordance with the application? 7. The only point which has been raised by the petitioners is that as per the advertisement, they should produce the partnership deed only at the time of interview and the non production of the partnership deed along with application cannot be considered to be a illegality or irregularity and, therefore, the rejection of the application on the ground of non production of the partnership deed is erroneous and it is an error in the eye of law. 8. In this connection, when we take into consideration the main application, the column 2 of the application would clearly indicate that “In the case of partnership please given name of each of the partners and attach registered/Proposed Partnership Deed. Application of all the partners) should be attached together while submission”. Therefore, it is very clear that the clause contemplates that the application should be sent along with registered partnership deed or with the proposed partnership deed. Therefore, de hors the publication made in the “Dinathanthi” paper calling for the application, the very application itself would clearly denotes that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to produce either the registered partnership deed or atleast a proposed partnership deed. Even though the petitioners would specifically contend that they had applied only as partnership firm, unfortunately they have not chosen to produce either the registered partnership deed or proposed partnership deed, which is fatal to the case in view of the fact that it is an essential requirement for submitting the application. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot contend that the publication did not specifically mention that they should sent the application along with partnership deed whereas, the column 4 of the advertisement reads thus: Tamil 9. The word ‘Tamil ‘also denote that it should be sent at the time of sending application. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot contend that the publication did not specifically mention that they should sent the application along with partnership deed whereas, the column 4 of the advertisement reads thus: Tamil 9. The word ‘Tamil ‘also denote that it should be sent at the time of sending application. The Division Bench of this Court in Dr. M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (supra), has categorically stated as follows at p. 388 of MLJ: “25. In the earlier part of our orders, we have extracted relevant provision, viz., instructions, etc. to candidates as well as the Information Brochure of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, we hold that the terms and conditions of Instructions, etc. to Candidates and Information Brochure have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. We are also of the view that no modification/relaxation can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and application filed in violation of the Instructions, etc. to candidates and the terms of the Information Brochure is liable to be rejected. We are also of the view that strict adherence to the terms and conditions is paramount consideration and the same cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to a named authority by the use of clear language. As said at the beginning of our order, since similar violations are happening in the cases relating to admission of students to various courses, we have dealt with the issue exhaustively. We make it clear that the above principles are applicable not only to application calling for employment, but also to the cases relating to the admission of students to various courses. We are constrained to make this observation to prevent avoidable prejudice to other applicants at large.” 10. On a perusal of the above judgment, it is very clear that the instructions given are mandatory. Here in this case, the application itself called for production of partnership deed. Therefore, the non production of partnership deed is fatal. Similarly, by following the above judgment, the another Division Bench of this Court in Dr. A. Rajapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry (supra), has held as follows at p. 824 of MLJ: “13. Therefore, the non production of partnership deed is fatal. Similarly, by following the above judgment, the another Division Bench of this Court in Dr. A. Rajapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry (supra), has held as follows at p. 824 of MLJ: “13. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench, it is clear that the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners for not signing the OMR application and/or the declaration column, etc., This batch of writ petitions, numbering 68, is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.. Further, in (2009) 1 SCC 297 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated as follows: “14. He, however filed a writ application only on or about 23.11.2004. The High Court may be correct in its view that the purported cancellation of empanelment of the fifth respondent was made on a wrong premise. Though the advertisement published in Navbharat Times mentioned “framing of charge in a criminal case” as a disqualification, in the advertisement published in The Tribune and Dainik Tribune framing of charge in a criminal case was not mentioned as a disqualification. In the application form also, the applicant was not required to furnish any information regarding any framing of charge in a criminal case. It was neither necessary nor possible for the fifth respondent to disclose the fact that two first information reports had been lodged against him and in one of them he had been charge sheeted. The purported disqualification attributed to him. therefore, led to an unjust decision. The High Court, however, in our opinion failed to take into consideration the effect of delay and laches on the part of respondent 5 in approaching the High Court. A writ remedy is a discretionary remedy. The Court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or laches, indisputably, are the relevant factors.” 11. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now contend that merely because of the two interpretations of the word ‘Tamil’ made in the paper publication, it cannot be taken into account especially, the publication in annexure “C”, would categorically denote ‘Tamil’. Further, item 11 in annexure ‘C’ clearly states that if it is a partnership firm, the partnership deed should be produced. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now contend that merely because of the two interpretations of the word ‘Tamil’ made in the paper publication, it cannot be taken into account especially, the publication in annexure “C”, would categorically denote ‘Tamil’. Further, item 11 in annexure ‘C’ clearly states that if it is a partnership firm, the partnership deed should be produced. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now contend that they were under the bona fide impression that the said documents should be produced at the time of interview. 12. Therefore, the petitioners have not made out any case. The impugned order is valid under law. Hence the W.P. Nos. 1189 and 1990 of 2010 are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13. Insofar as the W.P. No. 9044 of 2010 is concerned as the W.P. Nos. 1189 and 1990 of 2010 are dismissed, it is open for the respondents to publish the results. Hence, this writ petition is closed.