The judgment establishes the principle that public authority decisions must be reasonable, fair, and rationally related to the misconduct, and that wider judicial review powers exist under Art.14 of the Constitution.

1. The petitioner was one of the applicants for selection to the post of staff Nurse, and was ranked as No. 467 in the ranked list brought into force by the Public Service Commission, with effect from 20-12-80.

There was however some doubt about the entry in her S.S.L C. book relating to community, and the Commission referred the matter to the Commissioner for Government Examinations, for verification. The Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner. She admitted that the relevant column was originally blank and that she herself had filled it up by inserting the word "Ezhava". But the Commissioner found, after due enquiry, that the entry was correct, though unauthorised. A duplicate S.S.L.C. book was therefore issued and the Commissioner held that no further action was necessary.

2. But the Public Service Commission thought that the making of the unauthorised entry amounted to tampering with the S.S.L.C. book, even if the entry was not false. R.22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure empowers the Commission to proceed against a candidate it he or she is found guilty of misconduct. Attempts to influence the Commission, its staff and examiners, attempts to prefer false complaints, making of false statements in the application form, "production of any false or tampered document", improper behaviour in connection with interviews and examinations, tampering with answer books and the like are all defined items of misconduct under the rule. The Commission therefore issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why her name should not be deleted from the ranked list, for tampering with the S S L.C. book She replied that the entry was made bona fide and truthfully and without knowing that it was such a serious matter. By Ext. P12 order, however, the Commission rejected the explanation as unsatisfactory, and removed her name from the list.

3. This writ petition is directed against Ext. P12.

4. One does not know under what power the P. S. C. has framed its Rules of Procedure. But it is a high constitutional body entrusted with the task of selecting candidates for appointment to public services, and it should have some disciplinary power over such candidates, to prevent unqualified people from getting into the services by illegitimate means and on the strength of false certificates relating to qualification, age, community etc. Conceding that power, however, the question remains whether it has been properly exercised in the present case. The mere existence of a power may not justify its exercise and the manner thereof, in every case.

5. Ext. P1 is a copy of the petitioner's School Admission Register. She was born in 1944. Her father was a "coolie". She belonged to the Ezhava Community. After studying upto standard X, she left school in 1966, "to join the nursing course". Children of middle class parents ordinarily complete S. S. L. C. by the age of 15 or 16 years, and leave school for joining colleges. The petitioner was able to reach the Xth standard only by the age of 22, and all that she could look for was a nursing career. Social and economic backwardness is writ large on the data supplied by Ext.P1. By reason of some omission on the part of those responsible for making the necessary entries, the column in her S. S. L. C. book relating to community remained blank. She supplied that omission. Technically, that was tampering with a document. But what she entered was the truth and nothing but the truth, as could be seen from Exts. P1 and P10, and also from the result of the enquiry held by the Commissioner for Government Examinations. Even the P. S. C has no case that the entry was false. The petitioner had owned up the mistake, both before the Commissioner and the Commission. There was no attempt to evade responsibility or conceal the truth. Her prayer in Ext. P11 was that she may be excused for doing something which, to her knowledge, was inoccuous. Despite all these, the Commission removed her from th