Judgment : The short question arising herein is whether the application submitted by the petitioner to the Public Service Commission in the form prescribed for SC/St candidates valued at Rs.5/-, could be accepted as valid. She is not a Schedule Caste, but is a Muslim. According to the Commission, the application prescribed for general categories ought to have been submitted by the petitioner. 2. The notification issued by the Public Service Commission is for appointment to the post of H.S.A. (Maths) in various districts including, Alappuzha which has been produced as Ext.P3. On submission of application, she was allotted bar code No.28416529. But since she did not get the memo for the written test, she contacted the district office of the Commission and was informed that since the application submitted by the petitioner values only Rs.5/- instead of the application worth Rs.10/-, the same cannot be considered. Thereafter, she submitted a representation before the Secretary of the commission and since no further information could be gathered, this writ petition has been filed wherein, by an interim order she was allowed to writ the examination provisionally. By a later interim order dated 9.6.2010, it was clarified that she could be provisionally interviewed, but the result of the petitioner shall not be published without obtaining orders from this Court. 3. The contentions of the petitioner are many fold. It is pointed out that Rule 4 of the General Rules of KS & SSR, which is the concerned one, provides that for submission of an application to the Commission, no fee shall be levied. But in the general conditions of the notification (Ext.P5), Clause 12 provides that the cost of the application form is Rs.10/- and the cost of the application form for SC/ST candidates is Rs.5/-. Sub-clause (10) of Clause 26 provides that the application submitted without the prescribed price, will be summarily rejected. It is submitted that this will go against the provisions of the General Rules of KS & SSR. Ext.P6 is the amendment of Rule 4 introduced as per G.O. (P) No.16/2009 P& ARD dated 8.10.2009 which provides for collection of cost of application at Rs.5/- for SC/St candidates and Rs.10/-for other candidates. This is made retrospective from 31.12.2002 and the retrospectivity of the rule is challenged by the petitioner. Ext.P7 is another Government Order, viz. Ext.P6 is the amendment of Rule 4 introduced as per G.O. (P) No.16/2009 P& ARD dated 8.10.2009 which provides for collection of cost of application at Rs.5/- for SC/St candidates and Rs.10/-for other candidates. This is made retrospective from 31.12.2002 and the retrospectivity of the rule is challenged by the petitioner. Ext.P7 is another Government Order, viz. G.O.(P) No.15/2001/P&ARD dated 5.10.2001 permitting the Commission to levy the cost off application form, if necessary. This is also under challenge herein. 4. The Government as well as the Public Service Commission have filed separate counter affidavits. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it is explained that in G.O.(P) No.11/2000/P&ARD dated 20.3.2000 which introduced standard application forms, there was no provision for collection of fee from the candidates. But later, the Government on a re-examination of the matter, permitted the Commission to collect fee for application, by Ext.P7 order. Accordingly, standardized application form and fees for application were fixed by the Commission with effect from 31.12.2002. It is pointed out that the amendment is thus made retrospectively from 31.12.2002 which is not illegal or unreasonable as pointed out by the petitioner. 6. In the counter affidavits filed by the Commission, the following aspects have been detailed. It is stated that in the common stipulations for direct recruitment and by transfer recruitment, it is clearly stated that the cost of application form is Rs.10/- and cost of application for SC/St candidates is Rs.5/-, which stands incorporated as clause 12(a) under the general conditions also. In clause 26(b) item 10 of the general conditions it was specified that the applications without prescribed fee will be summarily rejected. The petitioner submitted the application in the form meant for SC/ST candidates and being a member of the Muslim community, she is not supposed to submit such an application and hence the same was rejected. 7. It is further explained that in the application form worth Rs.10/-, the word ‘General’ is inserted on top right corner on side A. The application form for SC/ST candidates which costs Rs.5/-, is marked ‘SC/ST’ on top right corner. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashahv. Public Service Commission (2001 (2) KLT 788 (SC)). 8. In the additional counter affidavit also, these aspects have been explained. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashahv. Public Service Commission (2001 (2) KLT 788 (SC)). 8. In the additional counter affidavit also, these aspects have been explained. It is submitted that if the candidates verify the application form, they can easily come to know that it is meant only for SC/ST candidates, since in the cover containing the application, the words ‘general only’ and ‘SC/ST only’ are printed. It is also stated that the candidates can verify the category of the application form since in the Side A of the OMR conventional application form, on the top it is printed as ‘general’ in the application form of Rs.10/- and as ‘SC/ST only’ in the application form of Rs.5/- and in the category column there are specific marking for identifying the category of application form. 9. It is contended that the prescription of cost for the printed form is not against Rule 4 of the KS & SSR as the said rule bars only collection of fee. Fee and cost are totally different. Along with an additional affidavit, Ext.R1(a) has been produced, by which the Government permitted the Commission to levy the cost of application form from the candidates. Various details have been explained with regard to the processing of the application through Optical Mark Reader (OMR). Ext.R1(b) is the circular issued by the Commission with regard to the standardized application form that can be processed through OMR, wherein it is specified that a reasonable price of Rs.10/- (Rs.5/- for SC/ST candidates) has been fixed to make good the expenditure involved. It is also contended that the Commission is not realising any paise from the candidates in the case of on line application for which there is no cost of production. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N. Sugathan submitted that the collection of cost of form goes directly against Rule 4 of the general rules of KS & SSR. It is submitted that the retrospective effect given to the amendment will take away the vested right of the petitioner. Learned counsel explained that in the light of the prescriptions under the above rule, the circular Ext.P7 issued by the Government also cannot be supported. 11. It is submitted that the retrospective effect given to the amendment will take away the vested right of the petitioner. Learned counsel explained that in the light of the prescriptions under the above rule, the circular Ext.P7 issued by the Government also cannot be supported. 11. Rule 4 of the general rules of KS & SSR reads as follows: “Every candidate for appointment to any service or for admission to any suitability/eligibility test, whether a member of a service or not, who in response to a notification issued by the Commission makes an application, shall make such application either printed or typed in the model form prescribed for the purpose and published by the commission along with the notifications inviting applications for the post, for which no fee shall be levied.” Evidently, the rule bars only collection of fee from the general candidates as well as internal candidates. Herein, what is involved is evidently cost of the form only and the applicant is not remitting any fee for acceptance of the application. Therefore, the reliance placed on Rule 4 cannot help the petitioner. The words ‘fee’ and ‘cost’ are totally different and the concepts are also different. Hence, the question will have to be considered in the light of the pleas raised by the Commission that there was permission from the Government as per Ext.P7 itself to charge from the candidates the cost of the form. 12. It is clear from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent dated 9.11.2009, that permission by the Government for embossing the application with the seal of the Commission, was granted on 9.9.1971. The same was dispensed with by G.O.(Rt) No.20/91/P & ARD dated 29.5.1991 stating that no fee will be levied from candidates applying for the posts notified by the Commission. The Commission therefore, was not charging any amount even as cost of the applications. This was the system which was existing till 2001, when, as per Ext.R1(a) the Government granted permission to the Commission to levy the cost of application forms. The OMR system was notified with effect from 31.12.2002. Therefore, evidently from 29.5.1991 to 30.12.2002 the Commission was not charging any amount for the application forms. 13. Justification for charging the cost for application forms, is because of the exorbitant cost of production in producing the OMR form. it is stated that the cost charged is only nominal. The OMR system was notified with effect from 31.12.2002. Therefore, evidently from 29.5.1991 to 30.12.2002 the Commission was not charging any amount for the application forms. 13. Justification for charging the cost for application forms, is because of the exorbitant cost of production in producing the OMR form. it is stated that the cost charged is only nominal. The fact that permission has been granted by Ext.R1(a) cannot be disputed. Evidently, what is provided under Ext.R1(a) is only permission for levying cost of the application forms. Therefore, the same also does not go against Rule 4 of KS & SSR. Ext.R1(b) circular issued by the Commission has also prescribed Rs.10/- and Rs.5/- for the respective application forms as price, which is not a fee as envisaged under Rule 4 of KS & SSR. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.R1(a) (Ext.P7 produced in the writ petition) also cannot survive. 14. The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the petitioner submitted the application by paying Rs.5/-, nothing prevented the Commission from accepting the same. Herein, the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Commission will show that separate inscriptions were given in the application forms as well as in the cover as ‘general’ and ‘SC/ST’. Therefore, the petitioner has used the application form for SC/ST candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light similar judgments of this Court, herein as the petitioner was permitted to write the examination, this Court will have to treat the application of the petitioner as valid. The judgments relied upon are of Division Benches of this Court in W.A.Nos.2116/2010, 1100/2010 and 1955/2009. In W.A. No.2116/2010 the facts show that there was a mistake in the code number. The appellant was an applicant under general category and the code number relevant was 20/2006. The applicant was filled up writing the code number as 21/2006 meant for employees of member societies of the District Co-operative Banks. She requested for a correction which was allowed and she was issued hall ticket also. Accordingly, the appellant appeared in the examination and obtained minimum marks for inclusion in the ranked list. It was then the application was rejected. She requested for a correction which was allowed and she was issued hall ticket also. Accordingly, the appellant appeared in the examination and obtained minimum marks for inclusion in the ranked list. It was then the application was rejected. This Court accepted the plea of the Commission that on the legal position canvassed by the Commission, they are entitled to reject the application if the category code given in the application is wrong. But this Court was of the view that having allowed the appellant to correct the application and allowed the appellant to participate in the written examination, the Commission cannot change the stand later. Ultimately it was held thus: “Therefore, without disturbing the settled legal position that the PSC is entitled to reject an application which does not carry correct category code, we hold that in this case the correction allowed to be carried out by the PSC is just and reasonable and the PSC has no authority to deny selection to the appellant who came out successfully in the examination.” No parallel can be drawn from it to the situation arising herein. The petitioner wrote the examination only in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. The Commission had taken objection to the acceptability of the application even at the initial period itself. 15. In W.A.No.1100/2010 the appellant did not bubble the last digit of her roll number. In para 2 of the judgment, the Division Bench was of the view that “the appellant is entitled to relief though there is no reason to interfere with the legal position settled by the Division Bench and followed by the learned Single Judge.” The view taken thus on the facts of the said case is reflected in the following observations of the Division Bench: “This is because, in this case, the answer book is valid based on the correct filling of the application by the appellant by bubbling all the digits of the admission number in the examination held for selection by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the mark obtained is adopted for appointment by transfer also. Even if the appellant had bubbled the last digit of the roll number for the examination separately treated for appointment by transfer, the marks awarded in the common valuation would have been given to her for preparation of that list also. Admittedly, the mark obtained is adopted for appointment by transfer also. Even if the appellant had bubbled the last digit of the roll number for the examination separately treated for appointment by transfer, the marks awarded in the common valuation would have been given to her for preparation of that list also. In other words, but for the technical omission, with 38 marks obtained in the examination, the appellant would have stood first among the three candidates selected in the category for appointment by transfer because the other two secured only 34 and 30 marks each respectively. We do not think the appellant, a lady and a peon, with a first class degree in Mathematics with B.Ed. also with first class should be declined the benefit of selection process, wherein she came first among the candidates for appointment by transfer merely on account of the omission to bubble the last digit of the roll number, particularly when valuation of the answer book is done and marks are already awarded.” The decision turned on the peculiar facts of the case and the Bench proceeded to consider the matter without disturbing the settled legal position. 16. In W.A.No.1955/2008, there was two days delay in receipt of application by Commission. The matter was decided on the basis of the contentions of the parties and turned on the peculiar facts of the case. In para 3, the Division Bench observed that “we do not think there can be any controversy in the position canvassed by PSC inasmuch as PSC cannot be compelled to accept and act upon belated applications.” But, after considering various facts and the date on which the application was posted by the applicant, the Bench observed as follows: “We feel the claim of the appellant is bonafide and delay in postal transit is very common and the delay in this case is admittedly only 2 days. Further, even though the last date for receipt of application was 18.7.2007, written examination was conducted only on 29.7.2008 that is one year and two months after the receipt of applications. No prejudice or difficulty would have been caused to the PSC if her application send well in advance though received with a delay of two days was accepted.” 17. Further, even though the last date for receipt of application was 18.7.2007, written examination was conducted only on 29.7.2008 that is one year and two months after the receipt of applications. No prejudice or difficulty would have been caused to the PSC if her application send well in advance though received with a delay of two days was accepted.” 17. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19692/2007 wherein a like situation arose. Therein the applicant was a member of the Scheduled Caste. She submitted an application in the form she obtained by paying Rs.5/-. The applicant could not produce any certificate to prove her caste status and therefore she wanted to treat her as a general category candidate. The Commission did not include her in the ranked list as she could not substantiate her claim that she belonged to Scheduled Caste category. This Court found that the stand taken by the Commission cannot be said to be illegal, as the petitioner could not prove her caste status. It is from para 4 onwards this Court considered the contention that the petitioner should be treated as a general category candidate. In para 5, this Court held as follows: “It may not be possible to do so in the present case. There are two different sets of applications available, one available to persons who claim the status of a scheduled caste and a separate set of application for persons who come under general category. The stand taken by the Public Service Commission, that the petitioner herein cannot claim the status of a schedule caste obviously requires to be affirmed. This is because the application claiming the status of a scheduled caste is being considered as a separate category. Because of the inability on the part of the applicant to show his/her status as a scheduled caste, the same application cannot be taken into account for considering her in the general category. This will only be possible in the case of persons who claim the status of an OBC, because the OBC candidate also submits the same application. If he/she is not able to substantiate his/her claim, it will not result in rejection of his/her application. This will only be possible in the case of persons who claim the status of an OBC, because the OBC candidate also submits the same application. If he/she is not able to substantiate his/her claim, it will not result in rejection of his/her application. In those cases, it is open to the Public Service Commission to still consider the application provided, that person will come otherwise come within the zone comprehending the general category. I also note that it was always possible for the petitioner to apply in the general category. It seems that the petitioner must have been aware of the fact that she could not claim the status of a member of a scheduled caste by reason of her mother’s caste, especially in the light of the declaration made by the Supreme Court in PunithRai’s case {2003 (8) SCC 204} which was adopted by the Government and issued as an executive order.” The above observations are relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Commission, Shri V. Rajendran to show that this Court was of the view that the application form for SC/ST category cannot be used by a general category candidate or the same cannot be accepted later by the Commission. 18. The above judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.377/2008, relying upon the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Rangaswamyv. Kerala Public Service Commission (1982 KLT 574). 19. The legal position that is canvassed by the Commission is that the conditions prescribed in the instructions to the candidates are mandatory and the result for the non compliance will be rejection of the application. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others (ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523), examined the question whether the application could be rejected in a case where the original of the chalan evidencing payment of the fee to the treasury, has not been produced. Para 2 of the judgment reads as follows: “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. Para 2 of the judgment reads as follows: “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. To expect the Public Service Commission either as a body or any of the members authorised in that behalf by the Commission to scrutinise 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) 20. In Rangaswamy’scase (1982 KLT 574) in para 8 it was held 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. 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. The Public Service Commission is a high constitutional authority. This Court will normally be loathe in interfering with its decisions, unless strong grounds are made out like mala fides etc.” The general conditions cannot, therefore, be relaxed by this Court also in the light of the view taken therein. 21. In that context therefore the factual position emerging here, will have to be assessed. That the petitioner had to submit the application by using the general form, cannot be of any dispute. The same was available by remittance of Rs.10/-. What is submitted by the petitioner is only an application purchased at a price of Rs.5/-. The said application form is meant for applicants under the SC/ST category. The prescriptions under the notification, viz. clauses 12 and 26 clearly specify that application without prescribed price, will be summarily rejected. It cannot be said, therefore, that the rejection of the application herein is illegal or malafide. The said application form is meant for applicants under the SC/ST category. The prescriptions under the notification, viz. clauses 12 and 26 clearly specify that application without prescribed price, will be summarily rejected. It cannot be said, therefore, that the rejection of the application herein is illegal or malafide. The question of treating the application of the petitioner for acceptance under the general category also does not arise, in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19692/2007 which is confirmed in W.A. No.377/2008. The challenge against the rules, viz. Ext.P6 which is retrospective, need not be gone into by this Court since Ext.P7 Government Order was in force permitting the Commission to collect the cost of application form. It is not because of the amendment now introduced that the application stands rejected. Even otherwise, the Government Order Ext.P7 which is issued by the Government in tune with executive power, cannot be said to be invalid for any reason and the circular issued by the Commission was also there. For all these reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the actions of the Commission. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner made a fervent plea for inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the ranked list as she had appeared for the examination, the same was made possible only because of the interim order passed by this Court and the steps taken by the Commission cannot beheld as invalid or illegal for any reason. The petitioner was not entitled for appearance in the examination based on the application submitted. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.