ARAVINDAKSHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioned was included in the rank list for appointment of a last grade servant in Trichur District by the Public Service Commission. Petitioner rank number 206 in the said list. He was advised for appointment as a watcher based on the reporting of a vacancy in that regard by the fourth respondent. Petitioner was appointed as a watcher. While so, Ext. P4 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner why his advice should not be cancelled in terms of R.3(c) of the General Rules in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The reason is as follows: The fourth respondent, the appointing authority reported a vacancy on 1-2-1993. In the report the vacancy was indicated as that of a peon. The fourth respondent noticed a mistake in that reporting. It was really a vacancy of a watcher. Immediately that was intimated by the fourth respondent to the District Officer of the PSC over phone that the vacancy is that of a watcher. This is not disputed, rather it is admitted that such a phone message was received in the District Office of the P.S.C. Based on that phone message in ratification that the vacancy reported on 1-2-1993 is that of a watcher, the District Officer of the P.S.C. advised the petitioner and he was accordingly appointed by the fourth respondent, confirming the phone message, the fourth respondent issued a letter dated 12-2-1993 stating that the vacancy that was reported was that of a watcher. That letter reached the District Office of P.S.C. on 18-2-1993. By that time the list had expired on 11-2-1993. PSC takes 18-2-1993 as the date of reporting of the vacancy against which the petitioner was advised. So the petitioner was not entitled to have any advice as the list had expired. Accordingly, his advice is bad, P.S.C. takes that stand in Ext. P4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that this mistake was noticed when there was an inspection conducted by the PSC in its District Office, Trichur. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the advice as well as the appointment, counsel submits.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent reported a vacancy of peon on 1-2-1993. That was when the list had not expired. Therefore, that was a valid reporting. What had been intimated and conformed by letter dated 18-2-1993 is only rectification of a mistake in the reporting of 1-2-1993. When that error is rectified, the reporting will have its original date during the currency period of the list itself. By reason of correction of a mistake the date of the document will not get altered to the date of correction. So the view of the PSC is wrong. Ext. P4 show cause notice and final order if any issued based on such show cause memo are quashed. Petitioner is allowed to continue in service.