JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayers in the aforecaptioned original petition, filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows (see page No.9 of the paper book of this op):- “..........to set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow the prayers in the Original Application.” 2. Heard Sri. U. Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein/the sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal, Sri. P. C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 herein/respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A., and Sri. B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent (State of Kerala) in the original petition/4th respondent in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A. (Ekm) No.1675/2018, filed by the petitioner herein before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Ernakulam Bench, are as follows:- (see page Nos.21 & 22 of this paper book):- “1. Call for the records leading to Annexure A4 and Annexure A8 and quash Annexure A4 fully and Annexure A8 to the extent it does not include the applicant; 2. Issue appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of the applicant by reading down the stipulation in Annexure A2 that one must have studied Malayalam upto +2 in the light of Annexure A1 certificate of TTC and subsequent orders; 3. Issue appropriate direction commanding 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of the applicant and include him in Annexure A8 shortlist, if he is otherwise eligible to be included; 4. Issue appropriate direction to include the applicant in the selection process to post of Lower primary school Asst by inviting him for interview, verification of certificates etc as a special case and include him in the rank list as per his merit. 5. Issue appropriate orders to the 2nd respondent to delete the condition stipulated under clause (ii) of Special Note appended to paragraph 7 qualifications by issuing appropriate corrigendum; 6. Issue appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the applicant for the post of Librarian Gr.IV and permit her to participate in the selection proceedings in accordance with law; 7. Issue appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the applicant for the post of Librarian Gr.IV and permit her to participate in the selection proceedings in accordance with law; 7. Declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Lower primary school Asst pursuant to Annexure A2 notification read with Annexure A6 clarification issued by the government, if she is otherwise eligible and further declares that he is entitled be advised if he comes out successful in the selection procedure; 8. Such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 16.02.2021 whereby the abovesaid O.A. has been dismissed, on the ground that the plea of the applicant is allowed would amount to changing rules of the game after commencement of the selection process. 5. The petitioner herein/the original applicant, had applied for selection and appointment for the post of Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) (Malayalam medium) in Palakkad District, under the General Education department of the State Government. The said selection process has been notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission as per Anx.A2 selection notification dated 10.09.2014 (category No.387/2014), and the last date for submission of application in that regard was 15.10.2014. 6. The qualifications stipulated in Anx.A2 selection notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission and as published in Gazette dated 10.09.2014, for the abovesaid post of LPSA (Malayalam medium), in Palakkad District, in the General Education department, category No.387/2014, as per clause 7 thereof which reads as follows (see page Nos.27 & 28 of this paper book)(see also paragraph No.10 of Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal given on pages 74 & 75 of this paper book):- “7. Qualifications: (1) A pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or its equivalent. OR A pass in Pre-Degree examination conducted by any of the Universities in Kerala or any examination recognized by any such Universities as equivalent to Pre-degree examination. OR A pass in the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Kerala or any other Examinations recognized by Government as equivalent thereto. AND (2) A pass in TTC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala.” 7. OR A pass in the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Kerala or any other Examinations recognized by Government as equivalent thereto. AND (2) A pass in TTC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala.” 7. A perusal of the said selection notification would make it clear that the basic educational qualification prescribed for selection and appointment in the post of Lower Primary School Assistant is pass in S.S.L.C. or its equivalent and pass in T.T.C. Examination, as per the provision contained in Special Note (ii), wherein it has been stipulated that a candidate who has not studied regional language either under Part I or Part II or as medium of instruction of S.S.L.C., is not eligible for appointment. There is no dispute that the abovesaid prescription has been made in terms of Special Note (ii) given on paragraph No.7 of Anx.A2 notification and the same reads as follows:- “Special Note: (i) B.Ed Degree will not be considered in lieu of TTC. (ii) Candidates who have not studied the Regional language 'Malayalam' either under Part I or Part II or as medium of instruction of SSLC will not be eligible for appointment to the post [G.O. (Rt.) No.534/02/G. Education dated 19-3-2002, G.O.(Ms) 44/75/G.Edn. Dated 29.1.1975] (iii) Question papers for the written test if any, will be in Malayalam. The candidates should answer the question in Malayalam. [In the case of OMR answer sheet, answers are to be marked as instructed]” 8. It is common ground that Special Note (ii) has been stipulated strictly in terms of the prescriptions made by the State Government as per Anx.A3 G.O.(Rt.) No.534/02/G.Edn. dated 19.03.2002 and the operative portion of the said prescription which contained in the last paragraph thereof reads as follows (see page No.30 of this paper book):- “Candidates who have not studied the Regional Language 'Malayalam' either under Part I or Part II or as medium of instruction of SSLC will not be eligible for appointment to the post.” 9. According to the applicant, he does not fulfill the abovesaid eligibility conditions prescribed in terms of Special Note (ii) of Anx.A2 selection notification, which is prescribed in terms of Anx.A3 G.O. dated 19.03.2002. According to the applicant, he has studied Malayalam language as one of the paper in his TTC course and has passed the impugned course including the said paper in Malayalam. According to the applicant, he has studied Malayalam language as one of the paper in his TTC course and has passed the impugned course including the said paper in Malayalam. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said insistence as per Special Note (ii) of Anx.A2 selection notification, the candidature of the applicant was rejected by the respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission as per the Anx.A4 rejection order dated 04.01.2018 on the ground that the applicant does not fulfill the abovesaid eligibility conditions in terms of Special Note (ii), inasmuch as he has not studied Malayalam either as Part I or Part II for S.S.L.C. or as a medium of instruction for S.S.L.C., etc. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner, without challenging Anx.A4 rejection order and without making the Kerala Public Service Commission as a party and without approaching the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, had filed a writ petition (civil) before this Court as W.P.(C) No.40066/2017, which was disposed of by this Court as per Anx.A5 judgment dated 11.01.2018, with a direction that the competent authority of the State Government may consider representation dated 16.09.2014, marked as Ext.P4 therein, said to have been filed by the petitioner, without much delay, etc. 10. Later, the Government has issued Anx.A6 G.O. (MS) No.67/2018/G.Edn. dated 22.05.2018, where it has been interalia ordered that even if a candidate has not studied Malayalam upto Secondary or Higher Secondary levels but has subsequently studied Malayalam as a subject either at the graduate degree level or at post graduate degree level or for training course for teachers, then such a candidate would be eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST)/Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST), etc. Since the main issue in this case hinges upon Anx.A6, it will be pertinent to extract the entire text of Anx.A6 G.O.(MS) No.67/2018/G.Edn. dated 22.05.2018, which reads as follows (see page No.37 of this paper book):- 11. It is later, that the competent authority of the State Government in the General Education department has issued Anx.A7 G.O.(P) No.12/2018/G.Edn. dated 30.05.2018, whereby it has been ordered that in consideration of the request made by the petitioner in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Anx.A5 judgment dated 11.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.40066/2017. It is later, that the competent authority of the State Government in the General Education department has issued Anx.A7 G.O.(P) No.12/2018/G.Edn. dated 30.05.2018, whereby it has been ordered that in consideration of the request made by the petitioner in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Anx.A5 judgment dated 11.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.40066/2017. It is intimated that evenif a candidate has not studied Malayalam as a subject at the Secondary and the Higher Secondary level, but has studied Malayalam as a subject at least in the graduate degree level or post graduate degree level or for a training course for teachers, etc. through the regular course mode, then he/she will be eligible for selection for the post of LPST/UPST, etc. and that this has been so ordered as per Anx.A6 G.O. dated 22.05.2018 and hence the request of the petitioner is thus considered and disposed of, etc. A reading of Anx.A7 G.O. dated 30.05.2018 would make it clear that Anx.A6 G.O. dated 22.05.2018 and Anx.A5 judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2018, rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.40066/2017 have been referred to as item Nos.4 & 3 respectively, in Anx.A7. 12. On the basis of Anx.A6 & Anx.A7 G.O.s the petitioner herein has approached the Tribunal by filing the instant Ext.P1 O.A (EM) No.1675/218, which has now been dismissed by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 16.02.2021. 13. The main ground on which the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. is that the plea of the petitioner is allowed, then it would amount to changing the rules of the game after commencement of the selection process, etc. 14. The main contention urged by Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, it is even clear from a mere reading of Anx.A6 G.O. dated 22.05.2018 that the said directions therein have been issued only as a clarification. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place emphasis on the first sentence appearing in Anx.A6 G.O. dated 22.05.2018, which reads as follows :- On this basis, it is argued that the order issued by the Government in terms of Anx.A6 is only as a clarification to the earlier norm as per Anx.A3 G.O.(Rt.) No.543/2002/G.Edn. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place emphasis on the first sentence appearing in Anx.A6 G.O. dated 22.05.2018, which reads as follows :- On this basis, it is argued that the order issued by the Government in terms of Anx.A6 is only as a clarification to the earlier norm as per Anx.A3 G.O.(Rt.) No.543/2002/G.Edn. dated 19.03.2002 and that therefore, going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions as in State of Bihar & Others v. Ramesh Prasad Verma [ (2017) 5 SCC 665 (paragraph No.21)= AIR 2017 (SC) 734 ], where a subsequent order is only clarificatory or declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, and is issued to supply omission to clear any doubts in any prior law, then the same would have retrospective effect from the date of the prior order, etc. and therefore, though Anx.A6 norms issued on 22.05.2018 was not invoked either at the time of the issuance of Anx.A2 selection notification dated 10.09.2014 or as on the last date of submission of application in that regard (15.10.2014), since Anx.A6 order is only clarificatory in nature, the benefit thereof will enure to candidates like the petitioner, since the same will have retrospective effect as what is involved is only clarification or explanation of the existing norms. 15. Per contra, Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would controvert the said arguments and would point out that the said submission is factually and legally untenable and that it is the new norms which is substantively reducing the restriction as per the earlier norms in terms of Anx.A2 which was both at the time of issuance Anx.A2 selection notification and that Anx.A6 norms will have only prospective effect from the date of its issuance, viz., 22.05.2018 and would regulate only selections notified on or after the issuance of Anx.A6 dated 22.05.2018 and not in the case of Anx.A2 selection notification which was issued long prior thereto. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, otherwise, if the plea of the petitioner is accepted and Anx.A6 norms are made applicable to the instant selection notification as per Anx.A2, then it would amount not only to changing rules of the game after the commencement of the selection process but would also amount to fraud on the power as well as fraud on the public, as categorically laid down by the Apex Court in the decision as in District Collector And Chairman v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1993 SCC 655)], etc. 16. Therefore, the main issue to be resolved by us is as to whether the norms in terms of Anx.A6 dated 22.05.2018 is only clarificatory or declaratory or explanatory to the existing norms as per Anx.A3 dated 19.03.2002 (which was invoked at the time of issuance of Anx.A2 selection notification dated 10.09.2014), or whether it is the new norm which is substantively changing the restrictions and burdens imposed as per the earlier norms as per Anx.A3. 17. It is common ground that the impugned Special Note (ii) of Anx.A2 selection notification dated 10.09.2014 has been issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission mainly on the basis of the prescriptions made by the Government as per Anx.A3 G.O.(Rt.) No.534/02/G.Edn. dated 19.03.2002. 18. The operative portion of Anx.A3 G.O., which forms part of the last paragraph of Anx.A3 would make it clear that it is the definite policy stand of the State Government that candidates who have not studied regional language-Malayalam either under Part I or Part II or as a medium of instruction for S.S.L.C. will not be eligible for appointment to the post of LPST/UPST. 19. Whereas a mere reading of Anx.A6 norms dated 22.05.2018 would make it clear that the stipulation is that even if a candidate has not studied Malayalam as a subject upto the Secondary or Higher Secondary level, but in case the candidate has studied Malayalam as a subject, either at the graduate degree level or at the post graduate degree level or for the training course for teachers through the regular course mode, then he/she is stated as eligible for selection and appointment for the post of LPST/UPST. 20. 20. A comparison of the stipulations in Anx.A2 & Anx.A6 would make it clear that the former stipulation is rather strict in the sense that the candidate concerned should have studied Malayalam as a subject either as Part I or Part II of the S.S.L.C. (10th standard level) or as a medium of instruction at the S.S.L.C. (10th standard level), then only the candidate concerned will be eligible for selection to the post of Primary School Teachers, as above. Whereas, Anx.A6 would make a major departure and would stipulate that even if the candidate concerned has not studied Malayalam as a subject even upto Secondary or Higher Secondary level, but so long as a candidate has studied Malayalam as a subject either at the degree level or at the post graduate degree level or for a training course for teachers, etc. and in the regular course mode, then he/she is eligible for selection to the post of Primary School Teachers, as above. 21. Hence, it is only to be held that the norms as per Anx.A6 is a new and major departure made from the earlier norms as per Anx.A2, whereby the rigor of the restrictions imposed in Anx.A2 is substantively reduced inasmuch as even if the instant candidate has not studied Malayalam as a subject upto the Secondary level or Higher Secondary level but has studied Malayalam as a subject at the degree/post graduate degree level or at the training course for teachers, etc., under the regular course mode, then the candidate becomes eligible, etc. True that the Government has employed the word 'clarificatory' in the first sentence of Anx.A6 inasmuch as what is stated therein is that it is for the purpose of bringing clarity OTHER LANGUAGE to Anx.A2 norms. But in the context of a case in this nature, the mere word employed by the Government in Anx.A6 may not be finally determinative and the essence and substance of the matter will have to be duly assessed and understood before taking the view as to whether the norms as per Anx.A6 is merely a clarificatory or explanatory or declaratory, as understood in the decisions of the Apex Court as in Ramesh Prasad Verma's case supra [ (2017) 5 SCC 665 ] or not. 22. 22. The Apex Court has held in paragraph No.21 of the decision in State of Bihar & Others v. Ramesh Prasad Verma [ (2017) 5 SCC 665 ] that where the subsequent order is merely clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature, had purport, which is issued to supply the omission or to clear any doubts in any prior law and the same would have retrospective effective from the date of the prior order. 23. A reading of the said decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Prasad Verma's case (supra), paragraph No.21 would make it clear that what is to be assessed is the nature and purport of the order in question. In other words, where the nature and purport of the order or the essence and substance of the order is clarificatory or declaratory in nature then, certainly the same should be treated to have retrospective effect from the earlier order which is sought to be clarified by the subsequent order. Where it is not so clarificatory or declaratory, but is a new norm making a substantive departure from the earlier restriction and also significantly reducing the burden of the earlier norm, then certainly, it is only to be held that it is in substance and essence a new norm, substantively significant from the earlier norm and therefore, it cannot be held that the said new norm issued subsequently, will take effect from the date of issuance of the earlier norms. 24. In that regard, the Tribunal has also taken the same view and for the abovesaid reasons, we are in complete concurrence with the said considered views of the Tribunal, in that crucial aspect of the matter. 25. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission has also placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court as in Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. v. Aarya K. Babu & Anr. 25. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission has also placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court as in Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. v. Aarya K. Babu & Anr. [ 2019 (3) KLT 802 (SC) = (2019) SCC 587], wherein it has been held in paragraph No.14 thereof that if there is any change in qualification/criteria, after the selection notification is issued but before completion of the selection process and the employer/recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change the incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification, etc. 26. The learned Standing Counsel would point out that that is a matter within the exclusive domain and province of the selection agency concerned, and if the changed norms are made applicable to the instant case as contended by the petitioner, then it would amount to “fraud on the power or fraud on the public”, as held by the Apex Court in decisions as in District Collector And Chairman v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1993 SCC 655)], inasmuch as the specific representation made by the selection notification to the public is that only those who fulfill the prescribed qualification as per the selection notification alone could be considered and a very departure is made therefrom, many of the bona fide candidates, would have felt that they are intended to be not qualified and would not have applied and merely because few candidates have taken the risk and had applied, and the new norms is made applicable to them which would amount to fraud on the power inasmuch as public employment is a public wealth, which is subject to Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 27. 27. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that in a case like this, if at all the selection agency wants to apply the new norms as per Anx.6 to the instant selection notification then, for good and valid reasons the selection agency will then have to issue corrigendum notification so that the precious right of equal opportunity of public employment as guaranteed in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India are duly protected of such newly applied candidates who would not have otherwise applied pursuant to the earlier selection notification. 28. In that regard it is also relevant to bear in mind that public employment as understood in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, is a public wealth and can even be seen as their new form of public right as it is the public wealth of the nation, and these aspects of the matter are dealt with in the decisions of this Court as in Sreekantan Nair v. Muraleedharan Nair [1991 (2)KLT SN (3)]. 29. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission would point out that the commission is burdened with large number of selections and in a case like this, it is virtually impossible for the commission to issue a addendum notification and therefore, the said option is not something open to the Commission at all. 30. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the instant original application filed by the petitioner herein. We do not see any valid grounds to invoke the public law remedy of judicial review in this case. The petition fails and hence the original petition stands dismissed.