The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the Public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification inviting applications, and non-compliance may result in rejection of the application.

1. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector in the Armed Reserve in the Kerala Police Service. The first respondent, the Kerala Public Service Commission, called for applications for appointment to the post of Sub Inspectors in the General Executive branch. Since the said post carried brighter prospects, the petitioner applied for the same. The application was to be sent in a form costing Rs.S/-. The petitioner sent the application in the prescribed form along with a copy in another form bearing 50 paise stamp through the 2nd respondent-Inspector-General of Police, Trivandrum, on 2-10-1979. The petitioner felt that since he was a service candidate his application had to be routed through the head of the department. Ext. P1 is a true-copy of the covering letter sent along with the application. On 16-1-1980 the petitioner received Ext. P2 from the 1st respondent intimating him that his application was rejected as the same had been sent in the wrong form. What happened was that the 2nd respondent instead of forwarding the application bearing Rs.S/-stamp to the Public Service Commission forwarded the application bearing 50 paise stamp.

The petitioner wrote Ext. P3 letter to the first respondent detailing the circumstances under which the mistake took place. Nothing happened. Hence he has approached this Court for a direction to quash Ext. P2 and for a writ of mandamus to direct the Public Service Commission to permit him to compete in the test and for other consequential reliefs.

2. Along with the Original Petition, the petitioner filed CMP. No. 1245 of 1980 for an interim direction, to direct the first respondent to issue a hall ticket to him and to permit him to take the test on 2-2-1980. This Court gave that direction purely as an interim measure by order dated 28-1-1980, observing that the result of the test would be subject to the result of the O. P.

3. This O P. came before Narendran J., who felt that the matter had to be referred to a Division Bench when the decision reported in Uma Shanker v. Union of India (A I R.1980 S C. 1457) cited by the petitioner's counsel and the decisions in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese (I L R.1977 (1) Kerala 523) and in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasad Chandran (Writ Appeal No. 371 of 1976) cited by the counsel for the first respondent, were brought to his notice. This is how the petition comes up before us.

4. The stand taken by the first respondent-Commission is that it is bound by its Rules of Procedure. The Gazette Notification inviting applications was dated 28-8-1979 and the last date for receipt of applications was 10-10-1979. The Kerala Government Servants Application for Posts (Private Employment & Government Service) Rules, 1958 was amended by the Notification dated 5th July, 1979, published in Kerala Gazette No. 30 dated 24th July, 1979. The amended R.2 enables persons in Government employment to make applications direct to the Public Service Commission. This amendment came prior to the application made by the petitioner. The commission's stand is that it was perfectly justified in rejecting the application since it was not properly stamped.

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner had sent his application with Rs.S/-stamp and another with 50 paise in time through the 2nd respondent, the head of the department. Nor is it disputed that the application that reached the 1st respondent's office was the one bearing 50 paise stamp only From the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is seen that the 2nd respondent bad addressed a communication to the former alerting it about the mistake committed by the latter by sending the application with 50 paise stamp only. The question to be decided is whether the commission was justified in declining to consider the application of the petitioner.

6. This Court bad to consider a more or less identical case in the decision reported in I L R.1977 (1) Kerala 523. In that case, instead of sending the original chalan, the