JUDGMENT : P.G. Ajithkumar, J. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.1719 of 2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. He sought to set aside Annexure A5 ranked list to the extent it failed to show him as an other backward community candidate. Consequential reliefs including his advise for appointment were also sought. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application. It was, however, directed further that rights of the 2nd respondent, who was already appointed, should not be affected. Kerala Public Service Commission, aggrieved by that order, filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 were applicants for selection to the post of Attender Grade II in Homoeopathy Department in Kottayam District. In Annexure A5 ranked list, the 1st respondent was placed at 14 and the 2nd respondent was placed at 18. The 1st respondent claimed reservation available to other backward communities. In his profile, he claimed that he belongs to other backward community and produced Annexure A2 non-creamy layer certificate. His caste was shown in Annexure A2 as Pattariyas. The caste name shown in his SSLC is Padmasaliya. The petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancy, consequent to which he produced Annexure A3 wherein the Village Officer certified that the petitioner belonged to Hindu-Padmasaliya (Pattarya) community. 4. The ranked list was approved on 28.04.2020. However, requiring clarity in relation to the claim of the petitioner for reservation, the 2nd petitioner addressed the 1st petitioner. Annexure A8 is the said letter. Later the ranked list was published, wherein the petitioner was denied benefit of OBC reservation. The stand of the petitioners as reflected in Annexure A8 and also from the reply-statement is that a Gazette notification correcting the caste name of the petitioner was necessary to extend him the benefit of reservation. Instead of Gazette notification, the 1st respondent produced Annexure A3 certificate alone and therefore he was denied the benefit available to OBC. 5. The petitioners produced Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 28.05.2020 including Padmasali community also in the list of OBCs. A Gazette notification in this regard was issued only on 14.08.2022. Instead of Gazette notification, the 1st respondent produced Annexure A3 certificate alone and therefore he was denied the benefit available to OBC. 5. The petitioners produced Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 28.05.2020 including Padmasali community also in the list of OBCs. A Gazette notification in this regard was issued only on 14.08.2022. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners would submit that having the ranked list been approved as early as on 28.04.2020, the 1st respondent could not claim the benefit of Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 28.05.2020 or the subsequent Gazette notification. 6. Certainly, it is within the powers of the Kerala Public Service Commission to determine whether the application submitted by a candidate is valid and it satisfies the requirements of the notification. See: Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese [ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523], Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar [ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241] and Rangaswamy v. Public Service Commission [ 1982 KLT 574 ]. 7. The question here is concerning a different aspect. The 1st respondent submitted application claiming him to be a member of Pattariya community. The name of his community mentioned in his SSLC is Padmasali. If the 1st respondent has a claim that his caste name was mistakenly stated in his SSLC, what is the procedure enabling him to get the mistake corrected? The contention of the petitioners is that a Gazette notification in that regard should be produced. They place reliance in that regard on the general directions in that regard notified in the official Gazette. 8. Annexure R2(a) contained the instructions issued regarding submission of certificates by candidates claiming to be members of backward classes. Clause (g)(ii) reads as follows : 9. What is thereby insisted on is production of a certificate from the revenue authority. It is specified that no Gazette notification is required to support the claim that the applicant belongs to a community other than which is mentioned in the SSLC. Indisputably, Annexure A3 was produced before publication of Annexure A5 ranked list. 10. When the above was the requirement for an applicant to claim that he belongs to a different community than what is mentioned in his SSLC, how could the petitioners insist on production of a Gazette notification in that regard. Indisputably, Annexure A3 was produced before publication of Annexure A5 ranked list. 10. When the above was the requirement for an applicant to claim that he belongs to a different community than what is mentioned in his SSLC, how could the petitioners insist on production of a Gazette notification in that regard. Therefore, the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal that the 1st respondent was entitled to get the benefit of reservation, treating him as a candidate belonging to Pattariya community, cannot be said to be incorrect. 11. Although Annexure A5 ranked list was approved on 28.04.2020, it was published only on 19.10.2020. In the meantime, Ext.P8 order was issued including Padmasali community in the list of OBCs. A Gazette notification concerning that was issued only on 14.08.2022. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the said order and notification are declarations regarding the status of the community, Padmasali and it has retrospective effect. He places reliance on Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [ (2017) 15 SCC 595 ] and Praveen Kumar C.P. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [ (2021) 17 SCC 383 ]. 12. In James Mathew [ (2017) 15 SCC 595 ] the Apex Court held that once the National Commission issued a certificate regarding the status of a minority education institution, it declared the existing status and had retrospective effect. In Praveen Kumar C.P. [ (2021) 17 SCC 383 ], the question was concerning recognition of equivalence of educational qualifications. It was held that once the university issues orders recognising the equivalent status of the degree obtained by the candidate from another University, the same would be the required qualification, irrespective of the fact that the employment notification was issued earlier. The said principle may not be applicable to the facts of this case. The Pattariya community was newly added in the list of OBCs. The benefit of that order cannot have retrospective application for, the same is not a declaration of a right or status, but it is creation of a new right. 13. Be that as it may, in the light of Annexure A3, which is a certification by the appropriate revenue authority having the effect of correction of the mistake in noting the caste of the 1st respondent in his SSLC, the petitioners should not have denied the 1st respondent the benefit of reservation. 13. Be that as it may, in the light of Annexure A3, which is a certification by the appropriate revenue authority having the effect of correction of the mistake in noting the caste of the 1st respondent in his SSLC, the petitioners should not have denied the 1st respondent the benefit of reservation. In view of that matter, the order of the Administrative Tribunal does not require interference. This petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.