A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

The above Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the rejection of their applications for the post of Junior Health 1nspector Grade II in the Health Services Department for the reason that they have applied to the post in more than one District contrary to the instructions in the notification published for the post.

2. The contentions raised by all the writ petitioners are identical on facts. The following are the important contentions raised by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar on behalf of the petitioners. His argument was adopted by other learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, viz., Mr. Salil Narayanan, Mr. K.P. Dandapani, Mr. P.G. Rajagopalan, Mr. M.V. Bose, Mr. K. Ramakumar, Mr. John Joseph, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Mr. G. Prabhakaran, Mr. S. Ramesh and Mr. V.N. Achutha Kurup. According to the learned Senior Counsel, under the notification (Ext. P1), the vacancies in the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in all the fourteen districts had been notified. It was stipulated in the notification that the application should be addressed to the concerned District Officer of the Kerala State Public Service Commission (for short'the Commission'). The petitioners, who possess the qualifications to apply for the post, have applied on time to the District Officers of the Commission of the concerned district The written test for the post in all the fourteen districts was held on one and the same date and each of the petitioners appeared for the written test in one of the districts in respect of which he/she had applied. However, the petitioners were served with a communication from the Commission, in the form of memo of rejection, stating that their applications stand rejected on the ground that each of them had applied to the post in more than one district which, according to the Commission, was tabooed by the Gazette notification for the post. According to Mr. Nambiar -

(a) Ext. P1 notification did not stipulate that a candidate for the post could apply only in respect of one district and, therefore, the petitioners had applied pursuant to Ext. P1 and that they did not have the advantage of looking into the Gazette notification.

(b) They also filed a true copy of the Gazette notification and marked as Ext. P17 in O.P. 13928/1999, wherein there is a Note to the effect that candidates should apply only in respect of one district.

(c) It is argued that the newspaper notifications did not prevent applications being sent for more than one district and the Gazette notification does not contemplate rejection of applications on the ground that applications were made for more than one district when the applicant had taken the examination only for one district.

3. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the judgment of the Division Bench, comprising of AR. Lakshmanan & K. Narayana Kurup, JJ. reported in Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran,1999(2) KLT 63, is distinguishable from the facts of this case; or, in any event, that judgment requires reconsideration; or, at least the restriction clause has to be read down, not to make it applicable to cases where only one test is taken by a candidate who had applied from more than one district, or the test is held for all the districts on one and the same date, in which case a candidate can take the examination only in one district.

4. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in O.P.I 576/1998, which was rendered by the learned Single Judge after the Division Bench rendered the judgment reported in 1999(2) KLT 63 dated 26.10.1998, wherein the learned Single Judge held as follows:

"As the short notification did not contain the restriction clause, rejection of the petitioner's application is illegal. That violates the right of the petitioner to be considered for public employment under Art.16 of the Constitution of India."

The said judgment is under appeal, viz., W. A. No. 896/1999, an