JUDGMENT : Chitambaresh, J. 1. The selection is to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) for the 10% of the vacancies reserved for the Graduate Constabulary Wing of the Police and Vigilance department in the State. The contesting respondents in this bunch of original petitions are in-service candidates who applied for selection and were short listed by the Kerala Public Service Commission. It was found during the scrutiny of the documents that the contesting respondents had not either produced the requisite certificate or that it was not in the proper format as prescribed. The Kerala Public Service Commission asserts that such a certificate is essential whereas the contesting respondents maintain that the same is not necessary in the given situation. 2. Reliance is placed on Kerala Government Servants' Application for Posts (Private Employment & Government Service) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules' for short) for the necessity to produce a certificate. Reliance is also placed on the General Conditions attached to the notification inviting applications by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the format of the certificate. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal has by the order impugned held that there is no necessity for such a certificate much less in the prescribed format for the selection in question. The contesting respondents were directed to be included at the appropriate places in the ranked list if they are otherwise eligible by the order of the tribunal impugned in these original petitions. 3. We heard Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, Advocate for the Kerala Public Service Commission, Mr. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, Mr. V. Varghese, Mrs. P.K. Santhamma and Mr. T.T. Muhamood, Advocates for the contesting respondents as well as Mr. P.N. Santhosh, Senior Government Pleader at length. 4. Rule 2(A) of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that an application for the Government post shall be with the consent of the Head of the Office or Department under whom the applicant is employed. Rule 2(2)(a) of the Rules makes it obligatory for the applicant to route his application through the Head of Office in which he is working at the time of making the application. Neither Rule 2(A) nor Rule 2(2)(a) of the Rules applies when an in-service candidate applies to a post in the same department to the quota ear marked for him as a graduate. Neither Rule 2(A) nor Rule 2(2)(a) of the Rules applies when an in-service candidate applies to a post in the same department to the quota ear marked for him as a graduate. The term 'office' in Rule 2(A) of the Rules has to be read in the context of the term 'Department' therein and does not relate to a selection post in the same Department. The word 'office' has various meanings depending upon the context as held in Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Noor Muhammed Sheikh Mussa and another [ (2004) 6 SCC 166 ]. 5. The necessity for a certificate in terms of Rule 2(A) and Rule 2(a) of the Rules is to ensure that the Head of the Office or Department has no objection in relieving the applicant from the post which he is now holding. The certificate will also ensure that the conduct of the applicant in the past has not been blame worthy and he is fit to be considered for selection to the promoted post. Such a certificate is wholly irrelevant when the Head of the Office or the Department is in the same wing -the present post and the promoted post -like the Police Department here. The tribunal has in paragraph 8 of the order impugned observed as follows: “8. But, in this case, the Government have made a permission for reservation of certain posts for the constabulary and the PSC has invited applications for those posts exclusively from the constabulary. They have to produce certificates to show that they were working in the constabulary at least for a period of two years. In such cases, we think, the production of 'Form of Receipt' is redundant as it is an exclusive recruitment for a section of persons employed in the Police Department. But, ofcourse, if the rules or conditions insist for production of 'Form of Receipt', then the PSC is bound by them and the candidates are also bound by them. Going by condition No.18 of the General Conditions it is not clear whether the persons working in the same department apply for other posts in the same department they have to produce 'Form of Receipt'. A person of reasonable intelligence cannot perceive such a requirement under condition No.18 of the General Conditions”. Going by condition No.18 of the General Conditions it is not clear whether the persons working in the same department apply for other posts in the same department they have to produce 'Form of Receipt'. A person of reasonable intelligence cannot perceive such a requirement under condition No.18 of the General Conditions”. No question of adhering to the format prescribed in condition No.18 of the General Conditions attached to the notification inviting applications arises when we concur with the tribunal that no certificate at all is necessary. 6. A certificate is not necessary only because the contesting respondents in these cases are all Constables in the Police Department who seek selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the same department. The judgment in WP(C) No. 35017/2010 of this Court is distinguishable since that was a case of selection in a department different from the one where the employee was in. The judgment in WP(C) No.4173/2007 of this Court does not lay down the correct law for the reasons stated above though it related to promotion in the same department. The contesting respondents were short listed and the vacancies reported much before and the subsequent expiry of the ranked list does not jeopardise their interest. We feel that the impugned order of the tribunal is well balanced and does not suffer from any infirmity in law as to warrant exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction by us. The original petitions are dismissed. No costs.