The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the Public Service Commission to observe the principles of natural justice and carefully examine the responsibility of the petitioners for alleged mistakes, as well as the impact of the cancellation on their rights and claims.

G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.

1. All these petitions relate to a common question, viz., the scope of the power of the Public Service Commission to cancel advices tendered by it for appointment of these petitioners in various Departments.

2. Petitioner in O. P. No. 1356 of 1972 is an L. D. Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Malampuzha. On the advice of the Public Service Commission he was first appointed by the Superintending Engineer, Calicut, as an L. D. Clerk on 6-5-1971 and he is continuing in that post undergoing probation. He has got the minimum qualification prescribed under R.10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules to hold the post of an L. D. Clerk to which he has been selected. Before tendering the advice the Public Service Commission conducted a selective test for L. D. Clerks on 5-8-1970. The petitioner was admitted to that test. The ranked list of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission was published in the Gazette and the petitioner's rank is No. 177. That list came into force on 1-1-1971. By letter dated 10-3-1971 the Public Service Commission advised the petitioner for recruitment as L. D. Clerk in the Public Works Department. It is in pursuance to this that the Superintending Engineer, Calicut, appointed the petitioner as L. D. Clerk on 6-5-1971. The appointment order is produced in this case as Ex. P2. Subsequently he was allotted to Trichur Unit and posted as L. D. Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Malampuzha. He received a communication dated 15-2-1972 from the Public Service Commission to show cause why his advice should not be cancelled. It is alleged in that show cause notice that on inspection of the ranked list published in the Gazette dated 22-6-1971 it is seen that petitioner had obtained only 72 marks as against 80 marks prescribed and therefore the inclusion of the petitioner in the ranked list and subsequent advice to recruitment was made by mistake. A copy of that show cause notice is produced in this case as Ex. P4. Petitioner has submitted a reply on 25-2-1972. In that reply the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to issue such a notice and he also asked for certain particulars regarding the basis of selection, the mark obtained by the last person in the select list, and the rule under which the minimum mark was fixed. But the petitioner has not so far been furnished with those particulars and therefore apprehending that he may not be furnished with those particulars and at the same time his advice may be cancelled, he has approached this Court for relief. In the notice it is also mentioned that the recruitment would be cancelled if satisfactory explanation is not offered on the show cause notice. The petitioner contends that the Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction to cancel the recruitment. It is no part of the function of the Public Service Commission to recruit. It can only tender an advice. These are in brief his allegation.

3. The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit in answer to this petition. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner submitted his application in pursuance of the notification inviting applications for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerks on Rs. 90-190 in the various Departments. A test was conducted on 5-8-1970, the petitioner was admitted to that test and the ranked list was published on 1-1-1971. It is further stated that on receipt of the answer papers of all the candidates who wrote the test, the answer papers were sent for valuation only after allotting false numbers to them so that neither the candidates nor the examiners or others interested could locate the answer books of any particular candidate. After receipt of the mark list the false numbers were decoded and the marks entered against the original admission numbers given to the candidates. Some mistake happened in the decoding and as a result, agains