The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders of cancellation of advice and termination of service must be made within a period of one year from the date of the first advice, as per the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules.

Sreedharan, g. C.J.

When this Writ Appeal came up for admission, writ petitioner-first respondent entered appearance. We heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. As agreed to by counsel, we are disposing of this Appeal.

2. Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, third respondent in O.P. 10303/91 is the appellant. Commission challenges the decision rendered by the learned single judge directing the appointing authority and the Commission to drop all proceedings pursuant to Exts. P6 and P8 and to allow the writ petitioner to continue in service.

3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-Commission invited application for appointment as Lower Division Clerk in various Departments as per Notification published in the Gazette dt. 10.5.1988. Writ petitioner submitted applications pursuant to the said Notification both in Palghat and Ernakulam Districts. A written test was conducted by the Commission on 5.8.89. District-wise rank list was published. Writ petitioner was assigned rank No. 63 in Palghat and rank No. 603 in Ernakulam. On the basis of the higher rank obtained among the candidates of Palakkad District, she was advised for appointment as Lower Division Clerk as per Ext. P2 dt. 30.8.90. Consequent to that advice, Director of Technical Education issued Ext. P1 order dt. 3.10.90 appointing the writ petitioner as Lower Division ;Clerk. She joined duty on 15.10.90, Commission issued Ext. P3 notice dt. 28.7.91 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why her advise should not be cancelled under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The ground alleged in the notice was that she applied for selection to the post of L.D.C. In more than one District and gave information in her application that she did not apply in any other District. Writ petitioner submitted Ext. P4 reply. Dissatisfied with the reply, Commission issued Ext. P6 order dated 29.8.91 cancelling the advise for appointment. On the basis of Ext. P6 order passed by the Commission, the Director of Technical Education, the second respondent, issued Ext. P5 notice dated 18.9.91 calling upon the writ petitioner to show cause why her appointment should not be terminated. Writ petitioner filed representation dated 3.10.91 stating that she had not suppressed any material in her application and that the termination of her service is not legal in view of the specific provision contained in the first proviso to R.3(C) of the Rules. However, by Ext. P8, order dated 10.10.91, services of the petitioner as L.D.C. were terminated. Writ petitioner challenged Exts P6 and P8 orders passed by the Commission and the second respondent, the Director of Technical Education. Learned Single Judge quashed Exts. P6 and P8 orders and directed the respondents to allow writ petitioner to continue in service. Hence, this appeal.

4. The fact remains that writ petitioner applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk, pursuant to the Notification issued by the Commission both from Palakkad and Ernakulam Districts. It is also common case that she was ranked in the list of Palakkad as also in the rank list of Ernakulam. On the basis of the higher rank obtained by her among the candidates in the ranked list of Palakkad district, she got advice for appointment Consequent to that advice, second respondent issued the order of appointment as well. It is also beyond controversy that as per the Notification issued by the Commission, no candidate was to apply in more than one District. Since writ petitioner applied for selection in more than one district, she suppressed the actual facts and consequently tried to take an undue advantage. Be that as it may, the appointment given to the writ petitioner was sought to be revoked by the Commission by invoking the provision contained in R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordiante Service rules. As per that provision, Commission ha