The importance of following rules and norms to eliminate arbitrariness and ensure orderliness.

1. The Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment of candidates as Excise Guards. The petitioner applied. He came out successful in the written test and physical fitness test. The interview, which was part of the selection process, was to be held at 7 A.M on 14-7-1981 at the District Office of the Commission at Cannanore. But the petitioner could get the "interview card" (i.e. the notice issued from the District Office about the proposed interview) only by the evening of 14-7-1981. He could not therefore present himself for the interview in time. He complained to the Superintendent of Post Offices as per Ext. P4 dated 25-7-1981. Ext. P5 representation was made to the Public Service Commission on 27-7-1981. The Postal authorities conceded that there was some delay; but the P.S.C. said they could not do anything. Thus the petitioner lost the opportunity of being employed under the State, only because of Postal delay. The Commission could save the situation by arranging another interview or by other means. The petitioner prays for mandamus towards this end.

2. The Commission's stand is this. The interview cards were posted on 3-7-1981. Even according to the petitioner, the card addressed to him had reached the Post Office of delivery on 6-7-1981. On the same day, the Commission had also issued a Press release. It had done everything in its power properly and in due time. It is not responsible for Postal delay. If belated or irregular Postal delivery is to be taken as aground for supplementary interviews and the like, no ranked list could ever be published in time. The list in this case was finalised on 10-8-1981, and persons included in the list advised for appointment. The list has also since expired.

3. The petitioner concedes that ordinarily applicants who fail to turn up for the interview are ineligible for being considered; but it is said that the special circumstances of the case should have been taken into account by the Commission and justice rendered by relaxing the rule.

4. Randhir Singh v. Haryana (AIR 1977 SC. 2209) was a case where an applicant had failed to appear for the medical fitness test in time owing to belated intimation, and the Court interfered on the ground that the requirement of the prospectus regarding one week's advance intimation for such test had not been complied with. In Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew 1980(2) SCC 752 the appropriate authority had accepted "other methods" as proof of having acquired qualification, in the place of original certificates as prescribed; and the Court thought that the said departure from the prescribed procedure was not a matter of substance justifying interference by Court. In Kuriakose v. State of Kerala and another (1984 K L.T. 925) there is a general observation that "the question has to be viewed in the larger perspective of a citizen's fundamental right", but the decision rests on the Court's reluctance to interfere with a bona fide policy decision taken by the authorities. I cannot agree with counsel for the petitioner that these decisions unreservedly accept the proposition that the authorities themselves are bound to depart from the rules when justice requires it or that mandamus could issue for compelling them to do so. In a given case, a court may take the view that a rule is only directory and not mandatory and that a violation thereof will not invalidate what has been done; but to go further and hold that the authorities bound by the rules or norms could themselves depart therefrom in the interests of justice, would be dangerous. Rules are prescribed and norms are laid down to eliminate arbitrariness and ensure orderliness, and they are intended to be followed in every case; to recognise a power in those bound by them to relax their requirements, whatever be the justification or excuse, will be the surest way of torpedoing the rule of law.

5. The petitioner's case in the Original Petition is that he came across the interview card