M KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In August 1974 the Public Service Commission issued a notification for recruitment to eight vacancies of the post of Munsiffs from the Bar and four vacancies by transfer from the eligible categories in service. The last date for receipt of applications was 11-9-1974 and the interview of the candidates for the purpose of selection was fixed for 5-4-1975. The petitioner was one of the candidates from the service who applied for recruitment by transfer and was interviewed and assigned rank No. 5 in Ext. P1 ranked list of the Commission, and Respondents 4 to 7 were the candidates from the service who were assigned rank Nos. 1 to 4 in the list. When the petitioner appeared before the Public Service Commission on 5-4-1975 for interview, he was informed that the High Court had written to the Commission that he was disqualified for being appointed as Munsiff and that his application had been forwarded by mistake. The petitioner asserted that he was qualified and presumably, on account of this disputation, he was interviewed by the Commission. After the interview Ext. P1 rank list was drawn up. Against the petitioner's name stood the word: "provisional". On 29-4-75 the petitioner wrote to the Secretary, Public Service Commission, to let him know the reason for treating him as provisional. He did not receive any reply. He therefore filed this writ petition on 27-5-1975 praying to quash the interview conducted by the Public Service Commission and the ranked list prepared by it. The Commission by notice dated 24-5-1975 call d upon the petitioner to show cause why his name should not be deleted from the ranked list and action should not be taken against him for having furnished false declaration in the application by deliberately omitting a part of his service particulars in the relevant column of the application, and for having produced incomplete service certificate and thus suppressed factual information to mislead the Commission with a view to securing appointment through unlawful means. Ext. P4 is a copy of the notice, to which the petitioner sent his explanation, a copy of which is Ext. P5 dated 13-6-1975. After considering the same, by Ext. P6 the petitioner's name was deleted.

(2.) There is now no controversy that after the petitioner's application was forwarded by the High Court, the Registrar of the Court on 2-4-1975 informed the Secretary of the Commission over the telephone that the petitioner had been permanently debarred from holding higher posts in the judicial service. The telephone message was confirmed by a D. O. Letter from the Registrar dated 3-4-1975 stating that while the petitioner was working as temporary Sub Magistrate, Punalur, in the year 1965, he had been subjected to some disciplinary proceedings and as a result of the same had been permanently reduced in rank to the post held by him in the High Court Service, namely, Bench Clerk. It was stated that it had been made clear that the effect of the punishment will be that the petitioner will not be appointed thereafter to any judicial office. It was pointed out that these facts had escaped notice of the Office when the petitioner's application was forwarded.

(3.) Ext. P2 dated 1-3-1969 is a copy of the order of the High Court on the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner while he was a temporary Sub Magistrate, Punalur. The charge, briefly stated, was against the petitioner and two others for having tampered with the records in certain cases in the Magistrate's Court. Para.5 and 8 of Ext. P2 may be reproduced: