The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for administrative actions to adhere to the principles of natural justice and fairness, including providing reasons and an opportunity to be heard before taking adverse actions.

1. The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Telephone Operators as per an advertisement issued by the General Manager, Telecommunications, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-1, 1st respondent. The petitioner was called for the test, passed in the test and after appearing in the aptitude test and interview, was selected for training for appointment to the cadre of Telephone Operators in the Alleppey Division headed by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Alleppey, 2nd respondent. Subsequently medical test was conducted. It is a formality required for appointment in the Post & Telegraphs Department. The petitioner was found fit as indicated by Ext. P-3. The petitioner also submitted a declaration regarding his state of health, copy of which is marked as Ext. P-4.

2. After he was found medically fit, the petitioner was directed to fill in a printed form issued by the Department with an attestation form in which various details are to be mentioned with photo attached. This was complied with by the petitioner. Ext. P-5 is a copy of the form which the petitioner filled up. In it he had stated that he had been arrested on 20-11-1975 by the S.I. of Police, Alleppey South for shouting slogans. He was kept under judicial custody from 21-11-1975 to 4-12-1975 being accused under the Defence of India Rules. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alleppey rejected the application for extending the remand, filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Alleppey South, on 4-12-1975 and discharged the petitioner under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also stated that the case against him was finally withdrawn on 22-7-1977 on the Assistant Public Prosecutor's request for permission to withdraw the case, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alleppey. The petitioner's name was deleted, after this form was received, from the select list of Telephone Operators for 1978 whole year vacancies. The petitioner challenges this deletion as being totally without jurisdiction. Ext. P-6 was issued by the Divisional Engineer, the 2nd respondent. It is stated that no reasons are mentioned in Ext. P-6 for deleting the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is his fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution to be considered for appointment and this cannot be infracted without even affording him an opportunity to show cause against or without even informing him the reasons for doing so.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that he is fully competent to delete the name of any of the candidates in the select list and he has the power to appoint candidate to the cadre of Telephone Operators. This power is vested in him and equally so is the power in him to remove any name from the select list. No reason may be given for the same. The 2nd respondent has acted in accordance with the administrative instructions issued by the Government of India in this behalf. It is stated that the petitioner has admitted that he was arrested and kept in judicial custody during the emergency. Though the charges under the Defence of India Rules were withdrawn by the State Government on account of a change of policy, that does not necessarily mean that he was absolved from the charges.

4. When I read the counter affidavit I was rather shocked that an officer could state that it is for him to decide to make the appointment and that he has got the arbitrary right to remove any name from the select list. To say the least, this is a perverse view. No officer serving in this land could state like that.1 think he forgets that he is living in a country which has got a Constitution and as per which rule of law is to prevail. In the circumstances I directed the General Manager, Telecommunications to produce all the relevant materials on which it is said that the appointing authority had reason to believe that the petitioner was one who was prone to defy the provisions of law and therefore not fit for service under the Government. I