Back
1998 Supreme(Ker) 613
High Court of Kerala
Arunachalam Chettiar Lakshmanan, K. Narayana Kurup, JJ.
Kerala Public Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Hareendran - Respondent
W.A. No. 1700 of 1998
Decided On : 26-10-1998
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party to a fraud cannot be permitted to take advantage of a Rule providing for limitation on the power of the Commission to cancel an advice if it is subsequently found that such advice was made on some mistake. The mistake on the part of the Commission and fraud practised on the Commission are different things, and the limitation will not apply to the latter.
Headnote:
Fraud - Appointment - Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules - R.3(c) - The court discussed the application of R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and the first proviso thereto, and concluded that the first respondent perpetrated fraud on the Commission by giving a false answer against column No. 17(b) of the application submitted by him, suppressing the fact that he had applied for selection in respect of Wayanad District also. The court held that the first respondent cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefit of fraud played by him. The judgment also discussed the rationale and logic in preventing candidates from applying in two different Districts, and upheld the restriction on candidates from applying to more than one District in response to one notification.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Trivandrum District and Wayanad District, suppressing the fact that he had applied for selection in both districts. The Commission found that the first respondent furnished false statement against column No. 17(b) in his application knowing it to be false. Action was initiated against him, and his appointment was cancelled. The first respondent challenged the cancellation of appointment in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent perpetrated fraud on the Commission by giving a false answer against column No. 17(b) of the application submitted by him, suppressing the fact that he had applied for selection in respect of Wayanad District also. The court held that the first respondent cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefit of fraud played by him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of appointment of the first respondent was hit by the bar of limitation provided under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, and whether the first respondent's conduct amounted to fraud on the Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent's conduct amounted to fraud on the Commission, and the limitation provided under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules did not apply in a case of fraud. The court also upheld the restriction on candidates from applying to more than one District in response to one notification.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
K. Narayana Kurup, J.
1. The appellants are respondents 2 and 6 in O.P. No. 10625 of 1991 -M, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in the above Writ Petition and one of the applicants for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Various Departments) for all Districts. The Commission invited applications for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Various Departments) for all Districts as per notification dated 10.5. 1989. According to the said Notification, candidates should not send applications for more than one District and it further provided that if a candidate get selection by applying to more than one District in the same category his/her selection will be cancelled and disciplinary action would be taken against him/her. The selection was finalised of the basis of a written test and the ranked list was brought into force with effect from 19.6.1990 in all Districts other than Idukki. The first respondent/petitioner was assigned rank No. 55 in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Trivandrum District. Accordingly as per Ext. PI he was advised for appointment as Lower Division Clerk on 10.8.1990 in the Treasury Department. While so, the Commission received a petition alleging that the first respondent herein whose name was included in the ranked list for the post of Lower Division Clerk with rank No.55 in Trivandrum District was also included in the ranked list for the same post in Wayanad District assigning rank No.381. On receipt of the above petition, verification was made by the Commission and it was revealed that the allegations was true. The first respondent herein had filled up column No.17(b) of the application submitted in respect of Trivandrum District stating 'No' thereby suppressing the fact that he had applied in Wayanad District also. Column No.17 of the application form is extracted below:
"17 (a) If the Gazette notification requires that you should give the Division or Circle District of your choice state your choice.
(b) If the Gazette Notification prohibits you from applying for the post for more than one District, State whether you have submitted any application for the post to any other District (say yes or no)."
The Commission found that the first respondent herein furnished false statement against column No. 17(b) in his application knowing it to be false. As the first respondent herein was found to have applied for two Districts in response to the same notification, action was initiated against him by issuing Ext. P2 show cause notice dated 1.8.1991. The first respondent herein Ext. P3 reply on 19.8.1991 stating that he submitted his application to the post of Lower Division Clerk in respect of Wayanad District 'hurriedly' and was doubtful whether he had signed the application and thinking that the application would not be admitted by the Wayanad District Office of the Commission he submitted another application in respect of Trivandrum District also. It was further admitted by the first respondent that he appeared for the written test conducted for Wayanad District and he appeared for the written test conducted for Trivandrum District also thinking that his appearance for written test for Wayanad District is provisional? It was also admitted that he was called upon to cure the defect in the application by the Wayanad District Officer of the Commission and the first respondent cured the defects which, enabled him to appear for the written test for Wayanad District also. In view of the above reply of the first respondent, the Commission found that the first respondent had played fraud on it and ordered to delete his name from the ranked list for Lower Division Clerk assigning rank No. 55 in Trivandrum District and rank No. 381 in Wayanad District and to cancel, his advice made on 10.8.1990 (Ext. PI) for appointment in Treasury Department as per Ext. P4 proceedings dated 26.9.91. Ext. P4 order was challen
