ARUNA Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext. P2 order. By Ext P2 her advise for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board has been cancelled by the Public Service Commission on the ground that she "failed to report for duty as stated by the Chief Engineer (Electrical) Kerala State Electricity Board."

(2.) The petitioner's father was an employee in the Kerala State Electricity Board. They were residing in Thiruvananthapuram within the postal area of Nalanchira post Office. At that time, me Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting application for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier in the services of the Electricity Board. The petitioner was an applicant. The petitioner was included in the rank list prepared by the Public Service Commission as rank No. 1433. The rank list was published in March, 1992. The petitioner's father retired in 1993 and this resulted in shifting of the family to their native place at Cherthala. The petitioner submits that she had notified to the 4th respondent, post master of Nalanchira post office the change in her address and requiring him to send postal articles addressed to her in her new address, namely, Arun Vihar, Cherthala South P.O., Alapuzha Dist. The petitioner was getting several postal articles as re-directed from Nalanchira Post Office. While so, the petitioner received a communication re-directed on 29.6.1995. Ext. P1 is the cover of that postal article. It specifically shows that it was addressed to the petitioner in her address at Nalanchira post office and was re-directed to Cherthala South, Alapuzha. Ext. P1 cover contained an Ext. P2 communication cancelling her advice for appointment. It is at that time, the petitioner for the first time came to know about her advise and an appointment said to be issued by the second respondent. The petitioner aid not get any advise or any appointment order. So she appraised this position before the first respondent, Public Service Commission with a copy to the second respondent seeking revocation of Ext. P2 cancellation. It seems that the Public Service Commission had addressed the second respondent in Letter No. R 1B(2)8757/92-GWdated. 10.7.1995 referred to as item No. 5 in Ext. P4 with regard to the petitioner's case. Thereupon, the Electricity Board in Ext. P4 letter addressed the Public Service Commission that there are enough vacancies of cashier still existing and that revival of advise will not cause any problem to give her appointment. Inspite of that also there was no action from the Public Service Commission. It was in the above circumstances the Petitioner approached this court.

(3.) The Public Service Commission had filed a counter affidavit producing there with a representation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P2 on 30.6.1995. She had submitted to the Public Service Commission about her instruction given to the Nalachira Post Master about the change of address and the above details. The Public Service Commission submits that "the Chief Engineer (Electrical General), K.S.E.B. in the letter dated 18.2.1995 has informed the Commission that as the 150 candidates including the petitioner advised to the post have not joined duty and therefore, the advice tendered in respect of the candidates may be cancelled and substitutes advised. The Commission being satisfied that the appointing authority has issued the appointment order in terms of the rules, the advice in respect of the 150 candidates including that of the petitioner was cancelled and substitutes were advised on 5.4.1995 as per Rules". This cancellation was informed to the petitioner in Ext. P2 and that was served on the petitioner in the re-directed address as evidenced from Ext. P1 photo copy of the cover containing Ext. P2. The Public Service Commission did not send advise letter by registered post There is also no case for Public Service Commission that such advise letter was sent by registered post to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was not aware of her advise. The advise was cancelled by Ext. P1 on the reason that the Electricity Board had informed that the petitioner failed to report for duty. This cancellation is in terms of R.18(1) of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows: