JUDGMENT : C. Jayachandran, J. Ext.P1 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench, Ernakulam) in O.A.(Ekm)No.587/2021 dated 9.11.2022 is impugned in this Original Petition. The petitioner is the applicant before the Tribunal and the respondents are the Kerala Public Service Commission, its Secretary and the Controller of Examinations. The petitioner, who failed to submit the confirmation for writing the written examination through the one time registration profile on time, sought for a direction permitting the petitioner to make confirmation afresh, so as to download the admission ticket in order to appear for the written test, along with a prayer to condone the delay in submitting the confirmation. The prayer was rejected by the Tribunal as per the impugned order, holding that no indulgence or latitude can be shown to candidates who failed to comply with the conditions in the notification within the time frame stipulated. The Tribunal inter alia relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi.K.R. and others [ILR 2019 (4) Ker. 878 : 2020 (1) KLJ 441 ]. 2. The facts:- The applicant, who entered service in the Animal Husbandry Department as a part-time Sweeper as per Annexure-A1 order dated 29.7.2017, was promoted as Attendant in the Veterinary Dispensary, Chemperi. While so, on 5.2.2020, the respondent Public Service Commission invited application to the post of Livestock Inspector Gr.II/Poultry Assistant/Milk Recorder/Store Keeper/Enumerator vide Annexure-A3 notification. The method of appointment was recruitment by transfer from departmental candidates. As per Annexure-A4, the applicant submitted his application in the official website of the respondent/Commission. Clause-9 of Annexure-A3 stipulated that candidates must register their 'one time registration' profile through the official website of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Clause 12 of Annexure-A3 is relevant and extracted here below:- “12. If Written Test/OMR/Online Examination is conducted as a part of this selection, candidates shall submit a confirmation for writing the examination through their 'One Time Registration' profile. Such candidates alone can generate and download the Admission Tickets in the last 15 days till the date of Test. The applications of candidates who do not submit confirmation within the stipulated period will be rejected absolutely. The periods regarding the submission of confirmation and the availability of Admission Tickets will be published in the Examination Calendar itself. Such candidates alone can generate and download the Admission Tickets in the last 15 days till the date of Test. The applications of candidates who do not submit confirmation within the stipulated period will be rejected absolutely. The periods regarding the submission of confirmation and the availability of Admission Tickets will be published in the Examination Calendar itself. Information in this regard will be given to the candidates in their respective profiles and in the mobile phones registered in it. Candidates who have downloaded the Admission Ticket will alone be permitted to attend the examination. Appropriate disciplinary action as per Rules of Procedure Rule 22 shall be initiated against those candidates who submit applications with bogus claims of qualification regarding education, experience etc and submit confirmation for writing the examination, irrespective of whether they are present or absent for the examination.” 3. Accordingly, the applicant created his one time registration profile and provided his mobile phone number, 9497514711 in Annexure-A4 application, for the purpose of information being sent regarding the confirmation for written test. The applicant is 54 years old and is not proficient in using computer. He was undergoing quarantine due to Covid-19 pandemic from 13.2.2021 to 22.2.2021. On 15.3.2021, the applicant came to know from his friend that the examination is scheduled to 11.5.2021. Although the applicant contacted Akshaya Centre concerned for the purpose of making confirmation, he was told that the period for the same had already expired. The applicant has not received any information in his mobile phone number, contrary to the promise/stipulation made in Annexure-A3 notification. Therefore, he could not download the admission ticket for the written test. Since the instant selection is the last opportunity of the applicant, the applicant approached the Tribunal with the reliefs afore referred. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a reply/counter affidavit contending inter alia as follows:- The examination calendar for the month of May, 2021 was published on 01.03.2021 in the official website of the Commission. Besides, the same was published in the PSC bulletin on the same day. The date, time, duration and syllabus of the written examination was included in the examination calendar. Besides, the same was published in the PSC bulletin on the same day. The date, time, duration and syllabus of the written examination was included in the examination calendar. It was also provided in the examination calendar that candidates can submit their confirmation for writing the examination through one time registration profile from 20.2.2021 to 11.3.2021 and that candidates who successfully submit their confirmation on or before 11.3.2021 can download the admission tickets through their one time registration profile. The information regarding the submission of confirmation to write the examination was forwarded to all the candidates vide profile messages, as also through SMS to the mobile phone numbers provided in the candidates' profile. Twenty days time was provided for submitting the confirmation. Admission tickets were generated for all the candidates in the 14 Districts, who submitted confirmation for writing the examination on or before 11.3.2021. The petitioner was also intimated to submit the confirmation through SMS message sent to his phone number registered in the profile, i.e., 9497514711. The same was delivered on 20.2.2021 at 6.36 am. However, he did not submit the confirmation for writing the examination on or before the prescribed date. He has not logged into his profile during the period from 20.2.2021 to 11.3.2021. Since he failed to submit his confirmation, admission ticket could not be generated. The Public Service Commission also contended that the procedure for submitting confirmation was adopted to ensure that admission tickets are generated only to those applicants, who are willing to write the examination, thereby reducing the expenditure towards the cost of printing question papers, allotment of examination centers, posting of invigilators and posting of officers of the Commission for supervision. The said procedure also enables the Commission to allot register number to the candidates in a random manner, so as to avoid malpractices. It was reiterated that the information regarding submission of confirmation was given to all the candidates including the petitioner through the examination calendar in the website, PSC bulletin, the registered profile and SMS to the registered mobile pone number of the candidates noted in their profile. The Public Service Commission also contended that a total number of 17379 applications were received for the post concerned related to CIA, Defence personnel, open market and by transfer cadre in all Districts. The Public Service Commission also contended that a total number of 17379 applications were received for the post concerned related to CIA, Defence personnel, open market and by transfer cadre in all Districts. In the District of Kannur, 38 applications were received in the by transfer cadre, of which 24 candidates submitted their confirmation for writing the examination, which would show that more than 63% of the candidates have confirmed writing the examination abiding the procedure adopted by the Commission. The petitioner failed to act as per the instructions prescribed and the present situation is only on account of the laxity on the part of the petitioner, for which the Commission is not responsible in any way. On such premise, the respondent sought for dismissal of the O.A. 5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply statement of the respondents, whereunder Annexure-A5 details of the calls/SMS of the applicant's mobile phone number for the period from 19.2.2021 to 21.2.2021 is produced, to show that the SMS claimed to have been sent by the respondents was not delivered in the applicant's mobile phone number on 20.2.2021 at 6.36 am, as claimed. Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is pressed into service to contend that despatch of an electronic record occurs only when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the information cannot be deemed to have been given to the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that there was a time gap of more than a year between the date of notification and the last date for submission of confirmation and that it is practically not feasible for the petitioner to verify his profile on every day during the said period. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner also referred to an application for an interim order seeking permission to appear for the examination being rejected by the Tribunal at the first instance, against which the applicant preferred an original petition before this Court. Vide Annexure-A7 interim order, the applicant was permitted to participate in the written examination provisionally. However, this Court disposed of the said original petition on 16.7.2021 vide Annexure-A8 judgment, with the result, the interim order got vacated. Vide Annexure-A7 interim order, the applicant was permitted to participate in the written examination provisionally. However, this Court disposed of the said original petition on 16.7.2021 vide Annexure-A8 judgment, with the result, the interim order got vacated. Challenging the same, the applicant preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by Annexure-A10 order directing the respondents to issue provisional admission ticket to the applicant, based upon which the applicant participated in the written examination conducted on 29.7.2021. 6. For the sake of completion, this Court may also note that as per Annexure-A10 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the answer sheet of the petitioner is kept in a sealed cover and that the same is liable to be opened only after the entitlement of the petitioner is declared in his favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified in Annexure-A10 that the Tribunal shall go into the matter independently and pass orders without being influenced by the order passed by the Supreme Court on 28.7.2021, that is to say the date of the interim order, vide Annexure-A9. It is accordingly that the original application was heard and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Heard Sri.Lijin Thamban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Sri.K.S.Anil on behalf of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 8. Before addressing the factual aspects, this Court will take note of the legal position prevailing as regards the scope of judicial interference in selection process, especially when the prayer is essentially for relaxation of the instructions issued by the selecting authority. Authorities galore on the point. However we need not advert to each and every precedent, except referring to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi.K.R. And others [ILR 2019 4 Ker. 878 : 2020(1) KLJ 441 ]. After referring to several decisions on the point, the Full Bench concluded in paragraph no.13 that the consistent stand of the High Court has been to the effect that applications shall be submitted as instructed. It was held that it was incumbent on the candidates to abide by the instructions strictly, once the same were made known to the candidates with due clarity and without any ambiguity. It was held that it was incumbent on the candidates to abide by the instructions strictly, once the same were made known to the candidates with due clarity and without any ambiguity. The Full Bench went on to hold that there cannot be any relaxation of the instructions to suit the convenience of the parties in case of defects, if any, committed despite clear instructions and not because of any technical errors, beyond the control of the candidates. The logic behind such a strict stand has been explained with clarity by a Division Bench of this Court in Binimil.K.G. v. PSC [ILR 1997 (3) Ker.227 : 1997 (2) KLJ 477 ]. The relevant findings in paragraph no.3 of the judgment are extracted here below:- “3. The question to be considered is whether the Public Service Commission was justified in rejecting the application. Admittedly, the application was received subsequent to the last date for receipt of the application. That is a valid ground for rejection. Whether the peculiar circumstances of the case warrant condonation of such delay in submitting the application is a matter to be considered. The Public Service Commission is entrusted with the duty of conducting various departmental examinations and also selection of candidates for appointment to various posts. They have to deal with large number of application and when they call notification inviting application, last date is fixed for receipt of such applications. Due to various reasons the candidates may not be in a position to send the application in time. But such delays are not condoned by the PSC. If they show any relaxation in such rules it would cause delay in processing application. Moreover, that would pave way to certain undue favouritism to some candidates. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone such irregularities or omissions. The Commission with its heavy workload must strictly adhere to the norms set by it. The Commission has been taking a strict view of these matters and the various decisions on the point also would go to show that delay in submitting application is a valid ground for rejecting the application. So also, any violation of the conditions stipulated in the notification is a ground for rejection of the application. The Courts have always taken the stand that in such matters the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 cannot be extended.” 9. So also, any violation of the conditions stipulated in the notification is a ground for rejection of the application. The Courts have always taken the stand that in such matters the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 cannot be extended.” 9. Having referred to the prevailing legal position, we will now address the facts to ascertain whether any interference is warranted with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The specific claim made by the applicant in the O.A. (appellant herein) is that he had not received any information as regards confirmation to appear in the written examination in his mobile number provided along with Annexure-A4 application, with the result, he could not download the admission ticket for the written test. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant would deny the respondents' claim that message was sent in the applicant's phone number and the same was delivered on 20.2.2021 at 6.36 am. In proof of such denial, the applicant produced Annexure-A5 call/SMS details. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the examination calendar was admittedly published only on 1.3.2021, that is to say, after 8 days from the date of commencement for submission of confirmation for written test. As could be seen from paragraph no.2 in the reply affidavit dated 17.4.2021 preferred by the respondents, the candidates can submit confirmation for writing the examination through the one time registration profile from 20.2.2021 to 11.3.2021. However, inasmuch as the examination calendar was published only on 1.3.2021, the applicant lost 8 days time, which period, if granted as grace period from the last date of 11.3.2021, the applicant would have been able to submit the confirmation to write the examination and could have downloaded the admission ticket, is the argument advanced. 11. We are not in a position to appreciate the contentions of the appellant. Primarily we notice that as per the averments of the O.A. the solitary grievance espoused is that the applicant had not received any SMS in his mobile number as regards submission of confirmation to write the examination (see in this regard paragraph no.4 of the O.A.). The applicant therefore seeks indulgence in the matter of permitting himself to submit the confirmation and to appear in the written examination. The applicant therefore seeks indulgence in the matter of permitting himself to submit the confirmation and to appear in the written examination. The very language used by the applicant towards the end of paragraph no.4 of the O.A. is that he 'begs for a benevolent consideration by the Hon'ble Tribunal for rectification of his grievances'. We chose to quote the above aspect from the O.A. only for the reason that there is no room for any indulgence, latitudes or benevolence in the matter of adherence to the instructions to be complied with by a candidate, except when he stood prevented for reasons beyond his control. We have already quoted Clause 12 of Annexure-A3 notification, which stipulates that the period regarding the submission of confirmation and the availability of admission ticket will be published in the examination calendar and that information in this regard will be given to the candidates in their respective profiles and the mobile phones registered in it. It could thus be seen that Annexure-A3 vide Clause 12 contemplates three modes of communication regarding the relevant information. The first, ofcourse, is by publication in the examination calendar. The second is to provide information in the respective one time profile created by the candidates, which the applicant/appellant had admittedly created. The third mode is by way of communication via SMS to the mobile phone registered in the profile. We will deal with the first mode regarding publication in the examination calendar a little later. As regards the second mode – that is information in the profile created – we notice from Annexure-R1(b), produced by the respondents along with an additional reply statement, that the applicant had not logged into his profile for a period of about one year and two months, that is to say from 17.1.2020 to 13.3.2021, whereas, the last date fixed for submission of confirmation expired on 11.3.2021. The only logical conclusion emanating from this conduct is that the applicant/appellant was not vigilant. Clause 12 of Annexure-A3 is eloquent as regards the consequence of failure to submit the confirmation for written examination, which instruction in the form a mandate is extracted here below: “12........ The applications of candidates who do not submit confirmation within the stipulated period will be rejected absolutely. …..” 12. Clause 12 of Annexure-A3 is eloquent as regards the consequence of failure to submit the confirmation for written examination, which instruction in the form a mandate is extracted here below: “12........ The applications of candidates who do not submit confirmation within the stipulated period will be rejected absolutely. …..” 12. Going by the principle that the law protects only the diligent and not the indolent, as also by the standards set by the Full Bench in Reshmi (supra), we find no room for any interference in the matter. 13. Now coming to the issuance of an SMS alert, we notice that Ext.R1(a) has been produced by the respondents to show that an SMS in the registered mobile number of the applicant has been sent. The SMS details are contained in Annexure-R1(a). The SMS is seen sent on 19.2.2021 and that the same is seen delivered on 20.2.2021 at 6.36 am, as per Annexure-R1(a). We do take notice of the applicant's contention that the SMS was not delivered in his mobile number on the date and time as claimed by the respondents, in support of which he produced Annexure-A5 SMS/call details. However, we are of the definite opinion that once the Public Service Commission satisfactorily establish that the information has been sent by reliable material, no further liability can be fastened on it to also show that the information had in fact been delivered on the applicant, for, there could be myriad situations and circumstances which prevents the delivery of the article sent, especially, when the information is sent via electronic media. We cannot be oblivious of the inherent frailty, even in the midst of highly advanced technology, of a failure in this regard, be it systemic or otherwise. In the instant facts, we are fully convinced that the Commission had discharged its duty/responsibility by establishing vide Annexure-R1(a) that the SMS was sent to the mobile number of the applicant calling upon him to log into the profile and to submit the confirmation for writing the examination. 14. Now, coming to the final aspect which pertains to the publication of the examination calendar only on 1.3.2021, thereby causing a loss of 8 days to the applicant to log in, we are again not in favour of the applicant/appellant for more than one reason. 14. Now, coming to the final aspect which pertains to the publication of the examination calendar only on 1.3.2021, thereby causing a loss of 8 days to the applicant to log in, we are again not in favour of the applicant/appellant for more than one reason. First of all, publication of the examination calendar was not only the mode for communicating the information to the candidates; instead it was one among the three modes stipulated in Annexure-A3 notification. Even reckoned from 1.3.2021, the applicant got 11 clear days to log in and submit the confirmation, had he been diligent. As already indicated earlier, the applicant had not chosen to log in to his profile for about one year and two months, which in fact prevented him from getting information as regards submission of confirmation, for which the Public Service Commission cannot be blamed. Secondly, there is adequate compliance of communication through the second mode, that is through the profile created by the applicant. As regards the third mode, we have already found that the burden of the Commission stands discharged upon production of Ext.R1(a) containing the details of the SMS sent to the applicant's registered phone number. In the light of the above discussion, we find no warrant for interference with the well considered order of the Tribunal, with the result, this original petition would stand dismissed.