RAHUMATH S Vs. K P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ravikumar, J. Both these appeals are filed by the same person against the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 5400/07 and 17753/07. In fact, the appellant himself was the writ petitioner in both those writ petitions on the same subject-matter. He was a selectee to the post of Assistant Grade II under the Public Service Commission. The former writ petition was filed with the prayer to quash Order No.ESTT. II(3) 6933/06/GW dated 23-1-2007 of the PSC cancelling the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Grade II in its office by invoking the powers under Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II of the KS & SSR (Ext. P-11 therein) and the latter writ petition was filed with the prayer to quash the further proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext. P-11 that culminated in Ext. P-12 order of cancellation of his very advice for recruitment to the said post.

(2.) It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Public Service Commission was incompetent to invoke the powers under 10(b) (iii) of Part II of the KS & SSR to pass Ext. P-11 order as the said power is exclusively exercisable by the Government. To buttress the said contention the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Suresh Chandra Tewari reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1953 was relied on. The PSC has filed counter-affidavits resisting the claims and contentions. PSC could cancel the advice for appointment as recruitment agency in exercise of power Rule 3(c) of Part II of the KS &SSR read with its Rules of Procedures and also could cancel an appointment made into its service by invoking the power under Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II of the KS & SSR, as appointing authority, was the main thrust of its contentions. It was further contended that KS & SSR was adopted by reference by the PSC and therefore, the word 'Government' occurring in Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II of the KS & SSR had to be substituted by the word 'Public Service Commission'. To substantiate the said contention a Bench decision of this Court in Krishnan Nair v. Public Service Commission reported in was relied on. After considering the rival contentions the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions as per the common judgment dated 22-6-2009. Hence these appeals.

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the appellants Sri M. Sreekumar and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission Sri Alexander Thomas. Both of them reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge which were adverted to in the preceding paragraph.