KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the Kerala Public Service Commission against the judgment of a learned Judge in O.P. No. 3088 of 1976 ' reported in 1977 KLT 776. The appellant by a notification dated 2-9-1975 invited applications for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The recruitment was a special recruitment for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, for two vacancies. The writ petitioner applied on 1-10-1975. A ranked list was prepared by the Commission which was to have effect from 16-1-1976. Two candidates were advised in the ranked list, one a scheduled caste and the other a scheduled tribe. The advice was on 22-1-1976. The writ petitioner was one of the two candidates advised as rank No. 15 in the list and the first among the scheduled tribes. He joined on 11-3-1976. At the time of his application, he was an Inspector of Central Excise in the Central Excise Office at Vandiperiyar. This fact was not shown either in the application form or in its annexure. For failure to do so, Ex. P1 memo was issued to him to show cause why he should not be permanently debarred from recruitment by the Public Service Commission and why the advice made for his recruitment should not be cancelled under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. After receipt of Ex. P2 explanation and consideration of the same, by Ex. P4 order dated 5-6-1976, the Commission ordered that the petitioner's name be deleted from the ranked list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was also ordered under R.3(c) of the General Rules that the advice for recruitment of the writ petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police be cancelled. It was further ordered that the writ petitioner be debarred . from recruitment to Public Service for a period of three years from 5-6-1976. Two days earlier, by Ex. P3 dated 3-6-1976 the advice of the petitioner for appointment was cancelled and another candidate was advised in his place. By Ex. P5 dated 10-6-1976, the Government followed cancelling the temporary appointment of the petitioner and terminating his period of training. The writ petition to quash Exts. P3 to P5 orders was allowed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge's reasoning in short was that under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules which was relied on to sustain the action impugned, the mistake on the basis of which the cancellation of the advice for appointment was made by the Commission must be shown to have been such, but for which, the Commission would not have made the advice. As the learned Judge was of the opinion that even if the writ petitioner disclosed his appointment as Central Excise Inspector that would not have made any difference on the Commission's advice for appointment, the learned Judge took the view that R.3(c) would have no application and that the cancellation made on the basis of the same was invalid and unsustainable.

(2.) R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules reads as follows:

(3.) We shall first deal with R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That Rule shows a cancellation of the advice for appointment. The only condition needed for taking such action is that it must have been subsequently found by the Commission that the advice was made under some mistake. If there was a mistake and the advice was under a mistake the terms of the rule would be attracted. Are the requirements satisfied in the instant case We think they are; and the learned Judge, in our view, was wrong in holding otherwise. In the light of the conditions attached to the application and its Annexure, and the Notification for selection, to which we have called attention, it is clear that the writ petitioner's application was liable to rejection for non disclosure of the relevant facts which had to be stated in the columns of the application and the annexure or for any false particulars furnished or omission to furnish particulars. The non rejection of the application at the proper stage led to the consideration of the application on its merits, and eventually to the selection of the writ petitioner and his advice for appointment. These are the results of the mistake made by the Commission in dealing with the application. The Commission so said in Exts. P1 and P4; and the learned Judge in Art.226 was not justified in saying that even if the mistakes were known the Commission would still have made the advice. There was, in our view, enough to invoke R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, and to justify the action taken under Exts. P3 and P4. Ext. P5 is consequential on Ext. P4.