KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. SANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Public Service Commission framed its own rules of procedure and R.22(iv), relevant for cur purpose, reads thus:

(2.) Under this rule the axe has fallen on Santhamma. Santhamma was an applicant for the post of Staff Nurse. She was called for interview by the Commission and at the time of verification of the original documents to prove age, qualification, community etc., it was noticed that there was an unauthorised entry regarding community made in column 5 of her Secondary School Leaving Certificate. She was, however, admitted for the interview and her name was included in the rank list on a provisional basis subject to further verification of the entry regarding community. The SSLC book obtained from her was forwarded to the Commissioner for Government Examinations for verification regarding the authenticity of the entry relating to community found therein. The Commissioner for Government Examinations conducted an enquiry and on the admission made by Santhamma herself, reported that the entry was made by her in the place left blank in the Book. On the basis of this report, the Commission proposed to delete the name of the petitioner from the list, for, according to the Commission, she had tampered with the SSLC Book. A show cause notice was issued to her and the Commission passed an order deleting her name from the rank list on the ground that she has made 'unauthorised entity for Caste in the SSLC Book.' The Commissioner for Government Examinations also informed Santhamma that the tampered certificate could not be allowed to be in circulation and she was, therefore, permitted to apply for a duplicate copy of SSLC as per rules.

(3.) There is no dispute that she belongs to the 'Ezhava' community. It is also a fact that the column in the SSLC book which should have shown her community was left blank. It is admitted that it was Santhamma who made the entry in that Book. She thus tampered with the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. The short question is whether on these facts the Commission was justified in invoking R.22(iv) to cancel her rank list. The learned single Judge quashed the order of the Commission holding thus:-