BINEESH JOHN Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are substantially connected and therefore, I propose to pass a common judgment. The issue in these writ petitions are in respect of false entries with respect to the caste, in the application submitted to the Kerala Public Service Commission and the cancellation of appointment accordingly. I think it is better to narrate the facts of the writ petitions in brief separately.

(2.) W.P(C) No.23340/2016 Petitioner is a driver under the 3rd respondent in its Thamarassery depot. Pursuant to gazette notification dated 15.7.2010 issued by the 1st respondent for the post of Reserve Driver, petitioner submitted his application. Verification of the documents and physical examination of the petitioner was done and included in the rank list published by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P1 dated 26.2.2013. Accordingly, petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P2.

(3.) As per Ext.P3 dated 20.1.2016, petitioner was served with a show cause notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why his advice shall not be cancelled since in the application, petitioner has shown his community as Latin Catholic, while the petitioner is belonging to Roman Catholic Community, in order to secure appointment under the reservation quota earmarked for Latin Catholic. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply basically stating that, application was submitted through a private DTP center at Thamarassery since petitioner was not having sufficient computer literacy. Therefore, petitioner stated that, it was due to a mistake only, the entry happened to be made in the column provided for community as Latin Catholic in spite of Roman Catholic. According to the petitioner, while his documents were verified, petitioner has only produced the correct certificate including the matriculation certificate, which shows that he belongs to Roman Catholic community. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner has not suppressed anything before the Commission or produced any fabricated document and therefore, there is no fraudulent action from the part of the petitioner. That apart it is stated that, petitioner had completed 2 1/2 years of service in the 3rd respondent Corporation and crossed the age limit of 35 years and further that, he has a family consisting of wife and a 5 year old child, who is physically disabled. Therefore, petitioner requested not to cancel the advice and also to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. However, as per Ext.P5 order dated 10.6.2016, advice of the petitioner was cancelled. It is thus aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition.