Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.81 seconds)
Johnson S vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 5 December, 2018 cites

Kerala Public Service Commission vs R.Anilkumar on 10 October, 2012

Surprisingly, though the judgment in Anilkumar's case was rendered on 2.4.2013, Ext P5 show cause notice was issued by the Commission only on 14.11.2014. Another relevant aspect to be considered is that in Ext P4 memorandum, under which the petitioner was appointed, it has been specifically spelt out that the appointment of the candidate is subject to Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Further, even in Ext P7, the Commission has not stated that cancellation of the advice for appointment is effected, in exercise of the power under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. After a careful scrutiny of the relevant provisions and the precedents on the point, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Public Service Commission cannot cancel the advice for appointment of a candidate after the period of one year prescribed in the first proviso to Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, otherwise than in a case where fraud is alleged against the candidate. Therefore, the answer to the second question is found in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, Ext P7 is quashed.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Sisupalan Pillay K vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 29 June, 2010

13. The question as to whether the Public Service Commission could cancel an advice for appointment after the period prescribed under the first proviso to Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, in purported exercise of its power under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Appukuttan Pillay v Kerala Public Service Commission(1984 KLT 880). Answering an identical contention based on Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the Division Bench held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - A Dominic - Full Document

M.K. Santhamma vs The Kerala Public Service Commission ... on 5 October, 1982

18. As far as Santhamma's case is concerned, the facts revealed that an entry, relating to community was made by the applicant in her S.S.L.C book. Though the entry was made unauthorisedly, it was a correct entry. But the Public Service Commission, in exercise of power under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, proceeded against the applicant and deleted her name from the ranked list, alleging that the candidate had tampered with WP(C).No. 17113 of 2015 16 her S.S.L.C.book. The applicant challenged the action of the Public Service Commission. While upholding the challenge the learned Single Judge observed that the items of misconduct enumerated under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure are all designed to curb dishonest and improper conduct, and not to penalise errors of judgment or technical mistakes. On the question of the authority of the courts to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Public Service Commission, during the process of selection, it was held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1