JOHNSON Vs. KPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Public Service Commission by notification dated 18-8-1975, invited applications from qualified scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates for selection to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Kerala State Police Department. The petitioner submitted an application pursuant to such invitation. The recruitment was under R.17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That rule provides for special recruitment from among scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates.

(2.) Pursuant to the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was advised for appointment for the second vacancy. Pursuant to that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police and he joined duty on probation on 11-3-1976 While so, on 30-3-1976, the first respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission, issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the advice tendered by the Commission for his appointment should not be cancelled under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and further why he should not be permanently debarred from recruitment by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The action proposed by the Commission was because the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that he was Inspector of Central Excise at the time he made his application for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. There was a column provided in the application form against which he had to give the information about holding the post of an Inspector of Central Excise and never the less he did not disclose this fact. In his reply to the notice issued by the Commission, the petitioner explained that he came across the notification inviting application only about two days prior to the last date for making the application, since he had no time to route his application through his Department, he thought of applying directly and that was the reason why he did not mention the fact that he was employed as an Inspector of Central Excise The Public Service Commission considered this explanation and found it to be not true, for, his application had been received by the Commission much earlier and therefore his case that he came to know of the recruitment only two days prior to the last date was evidently not true. The Commission, therefore, found that the advice was vitiated by mistake and for that reason was liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, Ext. P4 order was passed by the Public Service Commission canceling the advice of the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police and also debarring him from seeking advice for appointment through the Public Service Commission for a period of three years. It is this order which is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(3.) The authority for cancelling the advice once tendered by the first respondent to the Government is said to be R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That sub-rule provides: