RAJASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. D I G OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After due selection by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was advised for appointment as a Constable in the Armed Police Battalion, by Ext. P1 communication dated 4-8-1985; but he was not so appointed. It is claimed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 that in view of R.10(b) of the General Rules of the KSSR and in the light of the directions contained in the GO evidenced by Ext. R1(b), they are not bound to act on the advice tendered by the Public Service Commission: they can themselves arrange for a further verification of physical defects, if any. As a general proposition, it is difficult to accent the position that when the Public Service Commission selects candidates after taking into account the qualifications prescribed 'by rules, the appointing authority can make a reassessment of the 'self same qualification, and reach a conclusion different from that of the PSC Ext. R1(a) is the rule governing recruitment to the post of Police Constables in the Police Subordinate Services. The stand of the PSC is that the selection which preceded Ext. P1 advice was made after keeping in view the qualifications so prescribed, and that this included verification of the candidate's height. Where the Commission was satisfied about the height of the candidate and advised him for appointment, it seems to me that the advice could not have been ignored by the appropriate authorities either on the basis of Ext. R1(b) or on the basis of R.10(b). R.10, in the nature of things, can prima facie apply only to posts where the special rules or their equivalent do not prescribe specific requirements about physical fitness or physical features like height, chest measurements and such other things.

(2.) I am told that in Writ Appeal No. 15/77 a Division Bench of this court has taken the view that the Government or the appointing authority will have no power to vacate an order passed by the Public Service Commission under R.3(c). The same principle should apply here also.