The main legal point established in the judgment is that the restriction on candidates to apply in only one district was not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, and the rejection of the appellants' candidature by the Commission was justified based on their conduct in making false declarations and applying in more than one district.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against different orders passed by Kerala High Court upholding orders passed by Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") rejecting applications filed by the appellants for the post of Junior Health Inspector, Grade II, in Kerala Health Service either on the ground that they made false statement in the application form to the effect that they had not applied in more than one district for appointment on the said posts though they had so applied or applied in more than one districts contrary to the instructions in the Gazette notification published for appointment on the said posts both of which are independently sufficient grounds for rejection of the applications.

3. The short facts giving rise to these appeals are that the Commission issued a notification, inviting applications for filling up 348 posts of Junior Health Inspector, Grade-II, in 14 districts of the State of Kerala, published in Kerala Gazette on 2.4.1996 and in Part I, Note-(2), thereof a restriction was put to the effect that applications should not be sent for more than one district in response to the notification, and if, application contrary to the said direction is sent and the candidate is selected, his name would be liable to be struck off from rank list and disciplinary action will be taken. Part II of the said notification contained, apart from application form in which application was required to be filed, general conditions. In column No. 8(b) of the application form, a candidate was required to state 'Yes' or 'No' in answer to the question whether he had applied for the post in any other district pursuant to the said notification. Under general condition 25(b), an application was liable to be summarily rejected if a candidate had applied for more than one district for a post in response to the said notification. Under condition No. 29 it was enumerated that if a candidate was, inter alia, found guilty of making any false statement in the application, he was liable to be debarred from applying for the post either permanently or for any particular period and if such a person had already appeared in any written or practical test that would be considered invalid and if any appointment made, a criminal prosecution may be initiated against him and action for removal from service be taken.

4. Thereafter on 11.4.1996 a short notification was issued by the Commission which was published in the newspaper inviting applications for filling up the said posts and last date of receipt of applications was 15.5.1996 and it was enumerated therein that for more details the concerned Gazette notification dated 2.4.1996 should be referred. Pursuant to the said notification 1270 persons applied, out of whom 436 persons applied for more than one district. In all 1233 persons appeared in written test conducted on 8.7.1998 in all the 14 districts simultaneously. In the year 1999, candidature of all those 436 persons was rejected either on the ground that they had applied for more than one district or they had given false declaration in the application form that they had not applied to any other district while in fact they had so applied.

5. Appellants in civil appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.4955-4966 of 2000 and SLP (C) No. 12254 of 2000 filed separate writ applications challenging the aforesaid order of the rejection of their candidature which were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court under two separate judgments. Sole appellant in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11170 of 2000 filed a separate writ application challenging order of rejection of his candidature and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court which order was upheld by a Division Bench. The aforesaid orders passed by the High Court are subject-matter of challenge in these cases.

6. When these SLPs were placed for consideration before a two-Judge Bench on 2.2.2001, it wa