A mistake in mentioning the category code by the petitioner in the application is a fatal one or not, is the question that arises for decision in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in English with B.Ed. qualification. The Public Service Commission invited applications for filling up the post of H.S.A. English in all 14 districts and petitioner was an applicant from Kozhikode district.

3. By Ext.P1, she was invited to participate in the written test. Therein, her category code was noted as 83/2006. By Ext.P2 memo she was informed that her application stands rejected, as instead of category 83/2006 it is mentioned wrongly as 84/2006 in her application. Ext.P3 is the copy of the notification published by the Public Service Commission. Category 83 is for direct recruitment from open market and 84 is for appointment by transfer.

4. The petitioner's contentions are many fold. It is submitted that a mistake, if at all in the category is immaterial as the notification was to fill up the post of H.S.A. English itself. It is pointed out that the petitioner was issued the hall ticket for appearing in the written test and thus, as the petitioner's application was treated as a valid one, at a later point of time it cannot be rejected. Reliance is also placed on Ext.P4 circular dated 29.5.2009 issued by the Public Service Commission itself with regard to the procedure prescribed for rejecting applications on the basis of mistake in the category number. It is pointed out that going by the Circular dated 21.12.2005, the Commission itself had specified that even if category number or the name of post have been wrongly mentioned, they could be accepted based on the name of the post written therein. By Ext.P4 circular the Commission directed not to accept those applications thereafter. It is pointed out that this circular cannot have a retrospective operation to reject the application of the persons like the petitioner, whose application is prior t the date of issuance of the Circular.

5. The Public Service Commission has filed an affidavit as directed by this Court. It is pointed out that after a detailed scrutiny of the application, it was found that the petitioner had erroneously entered the category number in the application as 84/06. It is a fatal defect and therefore the application was rightly rejected. Reliance is placed on para 14 (a) of the general conditions in the notification which stipulates that the candidates should explicitly note the name of the post, category number and department of the respective post in the application and at the envelope. It is the case of the Commission that incorrect entry of category number assigned for a post tantamount to stating that the candidate has not applied for the post. It is also explained that Ext.P4 circular is one published as a sequel to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35209/2008. It is further pointed out that it does not estop the Commission from rejecting an application.

6. Both sides have relied upon various decisions of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in Kuriakose v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 925) and Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission (1999 (2) KLT 534). Learned counsel for the Commission relied upon the decision of this Court in Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C. (1997 (2) KLJ 477) and that of the Apex Court in T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and another {(2008) 9 SCC 403} and the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28048/2008 wherein an almost identical issue arose for decision.

7. First I will examine the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Kuriakose's case (1984 KLT 925), the question raised was not identical. Therein, relaxation was given by the appointing authority with regard to the production of original documents at the time of interview. The successful candidate produced the originals of the testimonials before joining duty. In these circumstances, the que