The interpretation of Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, emphasizes that the mistake referred to in the rule must be understood as a mistake arising exclusively from the acts or omissions of the Public Service Commission.

1. These Writ Appeals are taken by the Public Service Commision against the common judgment in O. P. Nos. 1356, 1449 and 1814 of 1972. The petitioners therein had been advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment in the category of Lower Division Clerks. After that advice, the Public Service Commission purporting to act in exercise of their powers envisaged by R.3 (c) in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, for short, the Rules, issued notices to the three petitioners to show cause why the advices of their names for appointments should not be cancelled. At that stage, the petitioners in the three Original Petitions approached this Court for cancelling the show cause notices and Viswanatha Iyer. J., construed R.3 (c) and held that the mistake referred in that sub-rule must be understood as a mistake arising out of some conduct of the candidate whose name was advised. The learned judge therefore directed that the representations of the three petitioners in the Original Petitions who are respondents to these Writ Appeals must be considered by the appellant, the Public Service Commission, in the light of the interpretation that was placed on the sub-rule by the judgment under appeal. The question arising for decision in these appeals is therefore whether the qualification added to the word 'mistake' in the manner suggested in the judgment under appeal is justified. The rule with the proviso is in these terms:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Commission shall have the power to cancel the advice for appointment of any candidate to any service if it is subsequently found that such advice was made under some mistake. On such cancellation the appointing authority shall terminate the service of the candidate-Provided that the cancellation of advice for appointment by the Commission and the subsequent termination of service of the candidate by the appointing authority shall be made within the period of probation of the candidate."

This sub-rule was introduced with effect from 31st July 1969. A plain reading of the rule gives no doubt that the Public Service Commission will have the power to cancel the advice for appointment of any candidate to any service if it is subsequently found that such advice was made under 'some mistake'. The mistake can therefore be exclusively that of the Public Service Commission. The mistakes relied on by the Public Service Commission, as far as can be judged from the facts available before us, in the three cases, also appear to be mistakes arising exclusively from the acts or omissions of the Public Service Commission. There is nothing in the wording of the rule which would justify a limited meaning to be given to the word 'mistake' by limning it to mistakes committed by the Public Service Commission on the inducement of the candidate whose name has been advised. In fact it appears to us that the introduction of any such qualification would amount to a redrafting of the rule so as to change its amplitude and scope. Unless three are compelling reasons as in the case of the rule read as it is in the grammatical sense leading to absurdities or to arbitrariness so patent as to shake the judicial conscience it is not the function of a court to rewrite the rule however harsh it may appear to be The other circumstance in which rules or statutes can be "read down" is by understanding the written word in the light of the subject dealt with and with reference to the content as well as the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the statute and the evil if any sought to be remedied by the law. In the circumstances expressions in a statute will be understood in the background of the above factors. These principles are not of assistance to the respondents who approached this Court for giving a limited meaning to the word mistake in this rule. We no doubt see that in given circumstances considerable hardship can be caused to persons by the exe