IMPORTANT POINTS
The terms and conditions in the Notification subject to which the applications are invited, are only reproductions of the contents of Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. It is not as if in the matter of inviting applications and making advices, the Kerala Public Service Commission was entering into any contract with the candidate. This condition will operate only subject to the Rules and therefore despite the notice given that action will be taken for misconduct, that must be subject to the limitations in Rule 3 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.

1. The Petitioner is presently working as Driver Grade-II in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He was appointed pursuant to the selection procedure initiated vide Ext P1 Notification. As per clause 6 of Ext P1 Notification, the upper age limit prescribed for appointment to the post of Driver was 40 years. It is further specified that only candidates born between 2.1.1970 and 1.1.1989(both dates included) are eligible to apply for the post, with usual relaxation to SC/ST/OBC. Note(ii) to clause 6 provides for age relaxation of maximum five years to the provisional hands working in the K.S.R.T.C, provided they are within the prescribed age limit as on the date of their first appointment. The date of birth of the petitioner is 23.5.1969 and therefore, he had crossed the upper age limit of 40 years when he applied for the post of Driver. Based on Ext P2 certificate, which is to the effect that the petitioner had worked as a provisional driver in the K.S.R.T.C for a period of six years and two months and was continuing as such, the petitioner claimed the benefit of age relaxation provided under Note (ii) to Clause 6 of Ext P1 Notification. The petitioner's application seeking appointment was accepted and after written test and practical test Ext P3 advice memo dated 26.2.2013 was issued by the third respondent. By Ext P4 order dated 13.5.2013, the petitioner was appointed as Driver Grade-II in the service of the Corporation.

2. It is submitted that while continuing in service, the petitioner was issued with Ext P5 notice by the Public Service Commission, requiring him to show cause as to why the Commission should not cancel its advice for appointing the petitioner. The reason stated for the proposed cancellation of appointment was that the provisional service of the petitioner could not have been reckoned for the purpose of age relaxation, since it had been decided by the Court that empanelled service, otherwise than through the Employment Exchange, shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting age relaxation. The petitioner submitted Ext P6 explanation pointing out, among other things, that his advice for appointment was not liable to be cancelled after 1½ years. There upon Public Service Commission proceeded to issue Ext P7 communication informing the petitioner that the explanation offered by him was not satisfactory and hence, it had been decided to cancel his advice.

3. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext P7 and for a direction, commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the service of the K.S.R.T.C. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court had granted an interim order allowing the petitioner to continue in service. The petitioner has challenged Ext P7 mainly on two grounds:(1) That Ext P7 order is in violation of Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, inasmuch as Ext P3 advice memo was issued on 26.2.2013 and Ext P7 order of cancellation was issued only on 27.5.2015, more than two years after the issuance of Ext P3. (2) That the provisional service rendered by the petitioner as an empanelled driver in the K.S.R.T.C was rightly reckoned for the purpose of granting him the benefit of age relaxation.

4. The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.2055 of 2012 and connected cases, it had been declared that empanelled service should not be considered as employment service and relaxation in upper age limit should be given only for the provisional employees working in the K.S.R.T.C, selected through Employment Exchange. That pursuant to the judgment the experience certificate of the petitioner and similarly situated persons was verified and on finding that the certificate produced by the petitioner to prove his provisional service was issued based on his empanelled service, other than through Employment Exchange, the Commission decid