JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 13.06.2016 issued by Respondent whereby the Petitioner has been declared as ineligible on account of non supply of requisite documents. ii. to issued a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent to accept the application form submitted by the Petitioner vide letter dated 16.06.2016 and permit him to participate in the ongoing interview scheduled to be held w.e.f. 13.07.2016 to 22.07.2016 and make recommendation in favour of the Petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of his merit.” 2. Very briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: i. Pursuant to Annexure No. 2 Advertisement dated 24.12.2014 issued by the respondent Commission, petitioner made Annexure No. 3 Application, which was duly scrutinized and the petitioner was issued Annexure No. 4 Admit Card. The result of the written examination was declared vide Annexure No. 5 dated 02.01.2016. The further allegations being very crucial, we would extract the same as under: “8. That on 05.01.2016 another advertisement was published in the official website of Respondent but the same could not be seen by the Petitioner well within time. However, Petitioner was never informed either by telephone or by e-mail or by any other means to submit another form in order to ensure his participate in the ongoing interview. A true copy of advertisement dated 02.01.2016 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 6 to this Writ Petition. 9. That according to the advertisement dated 02.01.2016 a successful candidate was required to submit application form through registered post or personally on or before 27.01.2016 at 5:00 p.m. Petitioner could not receive the information with regard to the fact that a successful candidate was to submit application form along with other documents on or before 27.01.2016.” ii. Thereafter, it is the petitioner’s case that another Advertisement was issued, wherein the candidates were informed about the interview. Yet another list was published, which is Annexure No. 8 dated 13.06.2016, which is the impugned list. This list contained ineligible candidates and the petitioner’s name is also included in the said list. Thereafter, it is the petitioner’s case that another Advertisement was issued, wherein the candidates were informed about the interview. Yet another list was published, which is Annexure No. 8 dated 13.06.2016, which is the impugned list. This list contained ineligible candidates and the petitioner’s name is also included in the said list. It is his further case that, immediately on coming to know about the decision rejecting his application, he moved Annexure No. 9 Representation to permit him to participate in the interview. Accordingly, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Commission. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case, where the petitioner was declared successful in the examination and all that happened was that he could not submit the documents, apparently, not having noticed the communication issued by the Commission. He would submit that the interview is yet to begin. It is submitted that the equity is in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit that it is not a matter of statutory rule that the documents must be scrutinized and, therefore, nothing will stand in the way of the Commission scrutinizing the documents and allowing the petitioner to participate in the interview. It is submitted that no prejudice is caused and, therefore, the petitioner may be ordered to be interviewed. 5. Per contra, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Commission, would point out an unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 154 of 2015 (Shatru Jeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others). He would also submit that, by Annexure No. 6, admittedly, the candidates were notified of the obligation to produce the documents and, admittedly, petitioner has not complied with the same. If any relief is granted, it will also mean that all candidates, who have not applied like the petitioner and who applied later, must also be given opportunity. He would also submit that, by Annexure No. 6, admittedly, the candidates were notified of the obligation to produce the documents and, admittedly, petitioner has not complied with the same. If any relief is granted, it will also mean that all candidates, who have not applied like the petitioner and who applied later, must also be given opportunity. It is submitted that, when a candidate does not produce the documents at the appropriate stage, the candidate next in line, who has complied with the formalities, would be considered and, if any interference is made in this matter, it will cause grave obstacle in the functioning of the Commission and the holding of the interview would, itself, be held-up, as the candidates, who have not complied with the direction to produce the documents, will hold-up the interview by producing the documents after the cut-off date. He would submit that what is involved in this case is a selection procedure; there is a preliminary test; and the production of some other documents is deferred till such test is held and, therefore, there is nothing illegal. 6. We do not see any merit in the case of the petitioner. When law is at loggerheads with equity, it is the law which must prevail. The petitioner, undoubtedly, qualified in the preliminary examination. After the results are declared, admittedly, the Commission has issued a public notification requiring production of documents. The production of these documents is indispensable, apparently, for the further processing of the claims made by the applicants at the initial stage that they were possessed of certain qualifications, which were mandated. It may be for the convenience of the Commission and also the candidates that this procedure is adopted; but, that does not mean that the Commission should not be left free to devise a fair procedure for the processing of the applications so that only the duly qualified candidates are called for the interview. Any interference in the working of the Commission in these matters would, in our view, spell ruin for the efficient and prompt functioning of a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission, which the court would be loathe to do. We see no illegality attached to the list of ineligible candidates, which the petitioner challenges. Any interference in the working of the Commission in these matters would, in our view, spell ruin for the efficient and prompt functioning of a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission, which the court would be loathe to do. We see no illegality attached to the list of ineligible candidates, which the petitioner challenges. Petitioner figured in the list of ineligible candidates for a valid reason, namely, that he did not produce the documents, admittedly, within the time. Therefore, the Commission has acted methodically and as per the announced norms. Without setting aside the impugned list, apparently, petitioner cannot ask for a mandamus to be interviewed, which the learned counsel for the petitioner would independently press for. Therefore, we see no merit in the writ petition. None other reliefs can be granted. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.