The refusal on the part of the second respondent, the Chief Superintendent, Test Centre, Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chottanikkara, who was supervising the test for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher, in the centre at Higher Secondary School, Chottanikkara to accept the identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation in favour of the petitioner, has resulted in the petitioner approaching this Court. The plea raised by the petitioner is that such identity cards are well accepted for various purposes, and hence the petitioner should have been allowed to participate in the test.

2. As per Ext.P1 hall ticket, the petitioner was admitted for the written examination for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Computer Science/Computer Application) Senior and Junior, to be held on 1.9.2011. Ext.P2 is the copy of the identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation.

3. The petitioner contends that the identity card contained all details of the petitioner including the photograph. It is pointed out that the said card is issued for the beneficiaries of the Scheme, who are not assessees to the Income Tax, whereas income-tax assessees are having pan cards. Accordingly, it is contended that an authority which accepts PAN card as a valid I.D. proof, is legally bound to accept the E.S.I. identity card as a valid I.D. proof. The said card was issued while the petitioner was working as an employee in one of the institutions in Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. The Public Service Commission has filed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that in Ext.P1 hall ticket itself, the candidates have been required to produce any of the enumerated identity cards which was given vide publicity also as per Ext.R1(a) in the official bulletin of the Commission. It is pointed out that these details are furnished in its official bulletin, a fortnightly, so also in the official website. The petitioner did not produce any of the identity cards in terms of the prescriptions made by the Commission. The candidates are duty bound to produce the identity card as enumerated in the instruction and no other certificate produced as proof by a candidate can be accepted.

5. It is asserted that the Commission has to follow a uniform procedure in relation to selection of candidates since they are subjecting to more than 35 lakhs of candidates in every year in various selections, and the instructions cannot therefore be diluted. It is also pointed out that any dilution of the instructions is likely to create confusion in the minds of the candidates applying to the posts so also it will disturb the smooth selection process.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what is important as far as a candidate while being admitted to the written examination, is only that there should be adequate proof regarding the identity. Therefore, Ext.P2 identity card ought to have been accepted. It is pointed out that the stipulations in Ext.P1 are only illustrative and not exhaustive. It is therefore pointed out that the denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the selection process cannot be justified at all.

7. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the hall ticket, which contains various instructions issued to the candidates. Instruction No.2 therein is the following:

“Candidates shall produce a photo affixed Identity Proof in original and a self-attested copy of the same to prove their identity. (Voters ID issued by Election Commission), Driving License, Passport, identity cards issued by Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Kerala to physically handicapped persons, photo affixed Passbooks issued by Nationalized Banks, PAN Card. Identity cards issued to government employees by the departments/institutions concerned will be accepted in this regard). Candidates should also enter their Register number on the copy of Identity Proof.

Candidates who fail to produce identity proo