BABU Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the time limit prescribed in the relevant Rules for cancellation of an advice by the Public Service Commission will apply to a case of fraud played by the candidate, which was discovered after the time limit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner is the appellant. He applied for the post of Mazdoor in the Kerala State Electricity Board, when applications were invited by the Public Service Commission (for short "PSC") for the same. He was included in the rank-list published by the PSC. Based on his ranking, he was advised for appointment on 13.9.2002 and he joined service on 21.12.2002. Thereafter, he was promoted as Lineman Grade II on 5.11.2004. While so, the appellant was served with Ext.P2 show cause notice by the PSC on 20.01.2005, proposing to cancel his advice, invoking its power under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. He submitted Ext.P4 reply on 10.03.2005. He admitted in the said representation that he has passed the S.S.L.C. Examination as an over-aged private registration candidate. According to the PSC, it did not receive Ext.P4. His advice was cancelled by the PSC, as per Ext.P5 communication dated 6.6.2005. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Hareendran,1999 2 KerLT 63. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Appukuttan Pillay v. Kerala Public Service Commission,1984 KerLT 880, wherein this Court interfered with the cancellation of advice of a candidate to a public sector undertaking, on the ground that the action was taken beyond the time limit contained in Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short "KS & SSR"). The learned Counsel also brought to our notice the decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Malini,1996 2 KerLT 332. It was a case wherein the PSC cancelled the advice of a candidate for the reason that she applied simultaneously to two different districts for appointment to the same post, contrary to the specific stipulation contained in the notification. This Court, as per the said decision, interfered with the decision of the PSC on the ground that it was taken beyond the time limit stipulated in the proviso to Rule 3(c) of Part II of the KS & SSR. Therefore, the appellant prayed for quashing Ext.P5, as the order was passed beyond the time limit stipulated in Rule 3(c) of Part II of the KS & SSR.