Judgment : The refusal on the part of the second respondent, the Chief Superintendent, Test Centre, Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chottanikkara, who was supervising the test for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher, in the centre at Higher Secondary School, Chottanikkara to accept the identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation in favour of the petitioner, has resulted in the petitioner approaching this Court. The plea raised by the petitioner is that such identity cards are well accepted for various purposes, and hence the petitioner should have been allowed to participate in the test. 2. As per Ext.P1 hall ticket, the petitioner was admitted for the written examination for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Computer Science/Computer Application) Senior and Junior, to be held on 1.9.2011. Ext.P2 is the copy of the identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 3. The petitioner contends that the identity card contained all details of the petitioner including the photograph. It is pointed out that the said card is issued for the beneficiaries of the Scheme, who are not assessees to the Income Tax, whereas income-tax assessees are having pan cards. Accordingly, it is contended that an authority which accepts PAN card as a valid I.D. proof, is legally bound to accept the E.S.I. identity card as a valid I.D. proof. The said card was issued while the petitioner was working as an employee in one of the institutions in Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. The Public Service Commission has filed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that in Ext.P1 hall ticket itself, the candidates have been required to produce any of the enumerated identity cards which was given vide publicity also as per Ext.R1(a) in the official bulletin of the Commission. It is pointed out that these details are furnished in its official bulletin, a fortnightly, so also in the official website. The petitioner did not produce any of the identity cards in terms of the prescriptions made by the Commission. The candidates are duty bound to produce the identity card as enumerated in the instruction and no other certificate produced as proof by a candidate can be accepted. 5. The petitioner did not produce any of the identity cards in terms of the prescriptions made by the Commission. The candidates are duty bound to produce the identity card as enumerated in the instruction and no other certificate produced as proof by a candidate can be accepted. 5. It is asserted that the Commission has to follow a uniform procedure in relation to selection of candidates since they are subjecting to more than 35 lakhs of candidates in every year in various selections, and the instructions cannot therefore be diluted. It is also pointed out that any dilution of the instructions is likely to create confusion in the minds of the candidates applying to the posts so also it will disturb the smooth selection process. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what is important as far as a candidate while being admitted to the written examination, is only that there should be adequate proof regarding the identity. Therefore, Ext.P2 identity card ought to have been accepted. It is pointed out that the stipulations in Ext.P1 are only illustrative and not exhaustive. It is therefore pointed out that the denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the selection process cannot be justified at all. 7. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the hall ticket, which contains various instructions issued to the candidates. Instruction No.2 therein is the following: “Candidates shall produce a photo affixed Identity Proof in original and a self-attested copy of the same to prove their identity. (Voters ID issued by Election Commission), Driving License, Passport, identity cards issued by Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Kerala to physically handicapped persons, photo affixed Passbooks issued by Nationalized Banks, PAN Card. Identity cards issued to government employees by the departments/institutions concerned will be accepted in this regard). Candidates should also enter their Register number on the copy of Identity Proof. Candidates who fail to produce identity proof and its self-attested copy will not be permitted to attend the examination. Candidates should not bring with them any electronic/communication device such as Mobile Phone, Digital Diary etc. in the examination centre”. The identity cards include Voters ID issued by the Election Commission, Driving Licence, Passport, Identity cards issued by Social Welfare Department, Govt. Candidates should not bring with them any electronic/communication device such as Mobile Phone, Digital Diary etc. in the examination centre”. The identity cards include Voters ID issued by the Election Commission, Driving Licence, Passport, Identity cards issued by Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Kerala to physically handicapped persons, photo affixed Passbooks issued by Nationalized Banks, PAN Card and identity cards issued to government employees by the departments/institutions concerned. The instructions thus have specified the various types of identity cards. Admittedly, Ext.P2 does not come within the scope of any of these. In Ext.R1(a) also these details have been specified. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no clause under the instructions to the effect that failure to produce such of those enumerated cards will result in non admission of the candidate to the examination. 9. As far as the Commission is concerned, it is obvious that a procedure which has to be fool-proof, has to be adopted for the smooth conduct of the examination. Evidently, when instructions to the candidates are issued providing for production of various types of identity cards, the question is not whether any other identity card which is not specified, would have been sufficient. But actually the question is whether a candidate who fails to produce an identity card, should be admitted to the examination. Herein, it can be seen that in various examinations thousands of candidates will be participating. When the Commission issues instructions to the candidates, the same is binding on the candidates as well as the officers of the Commission and the persons manning the examination centres. If relaxation is made in such matters giving liberty to the staff and other persons who are involved for conducting the examination, then it may lead to confusion and chaos. 10. In this context, in certain similar circumstances this Court has examined the powers of the Commission to prescribe adequate conditions in the instructions to the candidates and the result of its non compliance by the candidates. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others (ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523) a Division Bench of this Court considered a case where the Commission rejected the applications for appearing for departmental tests for the reason that as per the conditions prescribed the original of the chalan evidencing payment of fee to the treasury, has not been produced. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others (ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523) a Division Bench of this Court considered a case where the Commission rejected the applications for appearing for departmental tests for the reason that as per the conditions prescribed the original of the chalan evidencing payment of fee to the treasury, has not been produced. In para 2 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus: “It cannot be said and it is not said-that the Public Service Commission has no power to prescribe the condition that applications should be accompanied by the original chalan receipts. There is considerable difference between the production of the original chalan receipt and a certificate showing payment, for there will be only one original chalan receipt and there can be any number of certificates showing payment. Therefore, if the Public Service Commission insists upon accompaniment of the original chalan receipt it cannot be said to be a requirement unreasonably specified by the Public Service Commission. It is not for this Court to go into this question further. If the Public Service Commission has prescribed this as a requirement, non-compliance therewith must result in rejection. The Public Service Commission cannot be expected to investigate further in a case where the application is not in compliance with the requirements notified to find out whether nevertheless, the applicant should be permitted to sit for the test. We must not forget the fact that a body like the Public Service Commission is dealing with several thousands of applications and in screening these applications with a view to reject such of those as are not in accordance with the requirements notified the clerical staff of the Commission will have to be depended upon to do the job. The direction to entertain or reject applications ought not to be conferred on such a staff lest it may lead to abuse. Therefore it is only proper that the Public Service Commission lays down rules and directs strict enforcement of such rules. The direction to entertain or reject applications ought not to be conferred on such a staff lest it may lead to abuse. Therefore it is only proper that the Public Service Commission lays down rules and directs strict enforcement of such rules. To expect the Public Service Commission either as a body or any of the members authorised in that behalf by the Commission to scrutinize all applications with a view to ascertain compliance with the requirements specified and investigate into the circumstances which result in default of compliance would be to expect the impossible.” (emphasis supplied) Therefore, their Lordship were of the view that the prescriptions made by the Commission should be strictly enforced, as any power to entertain and reject an application cannot be conferred on staff members as it may lead to abuse. 11. In a later decision of this Court in Rangaswamyv. Kerala Public Service Commission (1982 KLT 574) another Division Bench considered a similar question. Therein also, in paragraph 8 the legal position was explained thus: “8. With respect, we agree with the proposition laid down in the above decision. 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 rigour of the conditions and stipulations. The Commission will be within its rights in 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. 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 ground are made out like mala fides etc.” It is evident from the said dictum that the Division Bench was of the view that the conditions and stipulations cannot be directed to be whittled down by this Court also. There should be strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification. There is no discretion for the Commission or freedom to the staff to relax the conditions in the notification. Significantly, it was observed that “laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone irregularities or omissions.” 12. Such being the situation, the question is only whether the second respondent was in any way wrong in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the test. No discretion is vested in the Chief Superintendent of an examination centre to relax the conditions regarding the production of identity cards. In that view of the matter, it is not the question of the acceptability of Ext.P2 that comes in to the fore, but whether the petitioner has complied with the instructions in Ext.P1 in its strict sense. In that view of the matter, the theory that is advanced by the petitioner of substantial compliance, cannot be of any assistance. Any relaxation of the instructions will only lead to confusion. These instructions are meant for public good and for the proper conduct of the examinations. Therefore, strict compliance alone will ensure a proper conduct of the examination. Otherwise, if officers and other staff are given discretion in these matters, scores of dispute can arise and there is no power for them to determine such matters. It cannot be forgotten that the Commission will have to depend upon personnel of other departments, especially teachers, etc. for the conduct of the examinations. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the matter. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.