KPSC Vs. HAREENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Narayana Kurup, J.-The appellants are respondents 2 and 6 in O.P. No. 10625 of 1991 M, hereinafter referred to as the Commission' for short. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in the above writ petition and one of the applicants for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Various Departments) for all Districts. The Commission invited applications for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Various Departments) for all Districts as per Notification dared 10th May 1988. According to the said Notification, candidates should not send applications for more than one District and it further provided that if a candidate get selection by applying to more than one District in the same category his/her selection will be cancelled and disciplinary action would be taken against him/her. The selection was finalised on the basis of a written test and the ranked list was brought into force with effect from 19th June 1990 in all Districts other than Idukki. The first respondent/petitioner was assigned rank No. 55 in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Trivandrum District. Accordingly, as per Ext. P-1 he was advised for appointment as Lower Division Clerk on 10th Aug. 1990 in the Treasury Department. While so, the Commission received a petition alleging that the first respondent herein whose name was included in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk with rank No. 55 in Trivandrum District was also included in the ranked list for the same post in Waynad District assigning rank No. 381. On receipt of the above petition, verification was made by the Commission and it was revealed that the allegation was true. The first respondent herein had filled up column No. 17 (b) of the application submitted in respect of Trivandrum District stating 'No' thereby suppressing the fact that he had applied in Waynad District also. Colum No. 17 of the application form is extracted below:

(2.) The crux of the contention of the petitioner before the learned Single judge was that Ext. P-4 proceedings of the Commission dated 26th Sept. 1991 cancelling Ext. P-1 advice memo dated 10th Aug. 1990 is hit by the bar of limitation provided under sub-rule (c) of rule 3 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules as it has been passed admittedly beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of advice as borne out by Ext. P- l. He had a further contention that he submitted his application in respect of Wayanad District 'hurriedly' and was under the bona fide impression that it was defective and thinking that his defective application in Wayanad District could not be entertained, he submitted another application in Trivandrum District also.

(3.) The Commission filed a counter contending inter alia that the first respondent having suppressed the fact that he applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in response to a notification in more than one District contrary to clause 22 of the General Conditions of the notification under which candidates who are found guilty of making any false statement in the application form shall be liable for disqualification for being considered for a post is liable to be proceeded under the aforesaid Rule. Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission was incorporated in the General Conditions published along with the notification. The further contention of the Commission was that since the petitioner played fraud on the Commission and 'not a mistake' the period of limitation prescribed in rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules is not applicable and hence Ext. P-4 is not liable to be interdicted by this court. The learned Single judge after adverting to the rival contentions held that "this being a case of 'mistake', the limitation provided in rule 3 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules squarely applies" and in the result Ext. P-4 cancelling appointment of the petitioner was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. This writ appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single judge as already noticed.