NARAYANAN Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has come up before this Full Bench, consequent to the reference order dtd. 13/3/2020, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, in view of the apparent conflict of views in the Division Bench judgments rendered in Appukuttan Pillay vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) [1984 KLT 880 (DB)] and KPSC vs. Malini [1996 (2) KLT 332 (DB)] on the one hand, and that in the case of KPSC v. Hareendran [1999 (2) KLT 63 (DB)] on the other hand.

(2.) The facts of the case, dealt with by the Division Bench in Appukuttan Pillay's case supra, were relating to the cancellation of advice memo, ordered by the Kerala Public Service Commission ("PSC" for short). In that case, the petitioner therein had misrepresented qualifications, regarding experience, in the applications submitted to the PSC, and it was held therein that the period of limitation of one year from the date of the advice, as stipulated in the first proviso to Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules ("KS&SSR Part II" for short), would be attracted in such a case for the PSC to cancel the advice, and that, since the cancellation of advice memo was effected in that case beyond the period of one year, the impugned action was illegal and ultra vires.

(3.) In KPSC vs. Malini [1996 (2) KLT 332 (DB)] the Division Bench had considered the case, where the candidate had applied for selection to more than one district, contrary to the stipulations in the selection notification, and she had suppressed the actual fact that she had applied to more than one district, and had tried to take undue advantage. However, it was held therein that the abovesaid period of limitation of one year from the date of advice, as stipulated in the first proviso to Rule 3 (c) of KS & SSR Part II, would be applicable where the PSC takes action to cancel the advice memo, and since the impugned cancellation of the advice memo was rendered after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year from the date of advice, it was held that the impugned action of the PSC is illegal and ultra vires.