LAWS(KER)-1975-1-9

KPSC Vs. JAYADEV

Decided On January 21, 1975
KPSC Appellant
V/S
JAYADEV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are taken by the Public Service Commission against the common Judgment in O. P. Nos. 1356, 1449 and 1814 of 1972. The petitioners therein had been advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment in the category of Lower Division Clerks. After that advice, the Public Service Commission purporting to act in exercise of their powers envisaged by R.3(c) in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, for short, the Rules, issued notices to the three petitioners to show cause why the advices of their names for appointments should not be cancelled. At that stage, the petitioners in the three Original Petitions approached this Court for cancelling the show cause notices and Viswanatha Iyer. J., construed R.3(c) and held that the mistake referred in that sub-rule must be understood as a mistake arising out of some conduct of the candidate whose name was advised. The learned Judge therefore directed that the representations of the three petitioners in the Original Petitions who are respondents to these Writ Appeals must be considered by the appellant, the Public Service Commission, in the light of the interpretation that was placed on the sub-rule by the judgment under appeal. The question arising for decision in these appeals is therefore whether the qualification added to the word 'mistake' in the manner suggested in the judgment under appeal is justified. The rule with the proviso is in these terms:

(2.) Reverting back now to the question of interpretation of the rule, with great respect, we are unable to agree with Viswanatha Iyer, J., that we would be justified on the ground of hardship to give a content and meaning to the rule, different from its grammatical and literal sense. The learned Judge has referred to the principles often adopted by the court that it has inherent power to correct its mistakes but such mistakes should be corrected only if no vested rights had intervened in the meanwhile and only when the situations had not altered in a manner which would make it unjust to correct the mistakes thereafter Such a principle should be read into the power of the Public Service Commission as well though that power of the Commission stems from sub-r.(c) of R.3 and that therefore a different meaning must be given to the word 'mistake' in the view taken by the learned Judge. With great respect we cannot agree with this view. It is one thing to say that the Public Service Commission must bear in mind the principle that when vested rights bad accrued as a result of their action they should be wary and should not ordinarily cancel an advice already given and another to say that the word mistake in the rule must be understood in a limited sense. We do not understand the rule as laying down an obligation on the part of the Public Service Commission compelling them to cancel every advice when there has been some mistake committed by them, without any regard whatever to the time that had elapsed between the advice and the discovery of the mistake and without any regard whatever to the consequences of the cancellation of the advice. These are matters which we think can be considered by the Public Service Commission and ought to be considered by them before deciding to cancel or not to cancel the advices. But this is the maximum that a court can do in interpreting the scope and ambit of the rule. The very fact that the Commission have deemed it fit to issue notices to the candidates already advised to show cause why cancellation should not be effected indicates to our mind that the Public Service Commission wishes to act fairly in the matter and therefore wanted to afford the fullest opportunity to the candidates to place all the aspects of the matter before them and that any action taken by the Public Service Commission would be only after giving the representations from the candidates full and close consideration. This should be done and we feel no doubt that such would be the course that the Commission would be adopting.

(3.) We dispose of these appeals with the clarification that the mistake in sub-r.(c) of R.3 can be a mistake exclusively arising from the acts or omissions of the Public Service Commission. There will be no order regarding costs.