P SAJEEV Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the 3rd respondent are aspirants for the post of Shift Analyst in the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. , the 2nd respondent herein, for selection to which post, the 1st respondent- Public Service Commission invited applications by notification dated 24-5-1994 pursuant to which both of them applied. A written test was conducted and a short list dated 27-2-1998 was published, in which both found a place, but the 3rd respondent only provisionally on account of want of submission of attested copies of certificates of qualification along with the application, which was a notified requirement for a valid application, at the relevant time. In the interview which followed on 2-5-1998 and 4-5-1998, the petitioner participated, but the 3rd respondent was not invited, since the defect in the application was not cured, although allegedly a defect curing memo was issued by the Public Service Commission to the 3rd respondent on 23-12-1997. A rank list was published on 10-6-1998 in which the petitioner was rank no. 1. Pursuant thereto, he was advised for the post also, as per Ext. P1 advice memo. As instructed in the advise memo itself, he wrote to the Public Service Commission since he did not get appointment within three months.

(2.) THEN came Ext. P2 show cause notice dated 30-10-1998, directing the petitioner to show cause why the advice allegedly made by mistake should not be cancelled invoking Rule 3 (c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules on the ground that on rectification of the rank list, the 3rd respondent had to be included as rank no. 1, the petitioner's rank number was reassigned as no. 1a, and as there are only two vacancies, the petitioner being the junior- most among those advised, his advice had to be cancelled. The petitioner filed Ext. P3 reply stating inter alia that the reasons for lowering of his rank was not clear from the show case notice.

(3.) THEREAFTER, he received another show cause notice, Ext. P4, stating that although the 3rd respondent did not respond to a defect curing memo dated 23-12-1997 directing him to produce certificates to substantiate his community and date of birth pursuant to a show cause notice dated 23-4-1998, he produced copy of his SSLC certificate, which was received by the Public Service Commission on 5-5-1998, consequent to which a supplementary interview was ordered on 17-8-1998, and conducted on 3-10-1998, adding marks in which to the marks obtained by him in the written test, the 3rd respondent was found to have secured the 1st rank, as a result of which the petitioner's rank had to be lowered and his advice was proposed to be cancelled invoking Rule 3 (c) of Part II of K. S and SSR. The petitioner was directed to show cause against such proposal. In Ext. P4, Ext. P2 was cancelled also. The petitioner replied by Ext. P5, specifically contending that Rule 3 (c) is not attracted to the fact situation as there was no mistake either on the part of the Public Service Commission or the petitioner. The supplementary interview and inclusion of the 3rd respondent in the rank list were also challenged by the petitioner in that reply. However, by Ext. P6 order dated 6-1-1999, the Public Service Commission confirmed the proposal in Ext. P4 and cancelled the advice issued to the petitioner. Challenging Ext. P4 order, the petitioner has filed this original petition, seeking the following reliefs: