Judgment :- 1. In August 1974 the Public Service Commission issued a notification for recruitment to eight vacancies of the post of Munsiffs from the Bar and four vacancies by transfer from the eligible categories in service. The last date for receipt of applications was 119 1974 and the interview of the candidates for the purpose of selection was fixed for 5 41975. The petitioner was one of the candidates from the service who applied for recruitment by transfer and was interviewed and assigned rank No. 5 in Ext.Pl ranked-list of the Commission, and Respondents 4 to 7 were the candidates from the service who were assigned rank Nos.1 to 4 in the list. When the petitioner appeared before the Public Service Commission on 5 41975 for interview, he was informed that the High Court had written to the Commission that he was disqualified for being appointed as Munsiff and that his application had been forwarded by mistake. The petitioner asserted that he was qualified and presumably, on account of this disputation, he was interviewed by the Commission. After the interview Ext. P1 rank list was drawn up. Against the petitioner's name stood the word: "provisional". On 29 4 75 the petitioner wrote to the Secretary, Public Service Commission, to let him know the reason for treating him as provisional. He did not receive any reply. He therefore filed this writ petition on 27 51975 praying to quash the interview conducted by the Public Service Commission and the ranked list prepared by it. The Commission by notice dated 24 51975 call d upon the petitioner to show cause why his name should not be deleted from the ranked list and action should not be taken against him for having furnished false declaration in the application by deliberately omitting a parr of his service particulars in the relevant column of the application, and for having produced incomplete service certificate and thus suppressed factual information to mislead the Commission with a view to securing appointment through unlawful means. Ext. P4 is a copy of the notice, to which the petitioner sent his explanation, a copy of which is Ext. P5 dated 13 -61975. After considering the same, by Ext. P6 the petitioner's name was deleted. 2. Ext. P4 is a copy of the notice, to which the petitioner sent his explanation, a copy of which is Ext. P5 dated 13 -61975. After considering the same, by Ext. P6 the petitioner's name was deleted. 2. There is now no controversy that after the petitioner's application was forwarded by the High Court, the Registrar of the Court on 2 4 -1975 informed the Secretary of the Commission over the telephone that the petitioner had been permanently debarred from holding higher posts in the judicial service. The telephone message was confirmed by a D. O. Letter from the Registrar dated 3 4 975 stating that while the petitioner was working as temporary Sub Magistrate, Punalur, in the year 1965, he had been subjected to some disciplinary proceedings and as a result of the same had been permanently reduced in rank to the post held by him in the High Court Service, namely, Bench Clerk. It was stated that it had been made clear that the effect of the punishment will be that the petitioner will not be appointed thereafter to any judicial office. It was pointed out that these facts had escaped notice of the Office when the petitioner's application was forwarded. 3. Ext. P2 dated 131969 is a copy of the order of the High Court on the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner while he was a temporary Sub Magistrate, Punalur. The charge, briefly stated, was against the petitioner and two others for having tampered with the records in certain cases in the Magistrate's Court. Para.5 and 8 of Ext. P2 may be reproduced: "5 As regards the punishment to be imposed on Shri M. Krishnan it is clear that the misconduct established against him is very serious and he has proved himself unfit to hold any judicial office. Therefore the High Court proposed to permanently reduce him in rank and to disqualify him from holding any judicial office. Shri M. Krishnan was accordingly directed in the reference read as 5th paper above to show cause, if any, why he should not be reduced in rank permanently and disqualified to hold any judicial office. 8. The High Court, therefore, orders that Shri M. Krishnan, Temporary Sub Magistrate (under suspension) be reduced in rank to the post of Beach Clerk, High Court and that his reversion from the post of Sub Magistrate is permanent. 8. The High Court, therefore, orders that Shri M. Krishnan, Temporary Sub Magistrate (under suspension) be reduced in rank to the post of Beach Clerk, High Court and that his reversion from the post of Sub Magistrate is permanent. The High Court further orders that the increment of Shri K Jacob, now L. D. Clerk, Addl. First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumangad be stopped for a period of three years with cumulative effect and that the increment of Shri K. Madhavan Pillai, now Copyist, Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Chengannur be stopped fora period of one year with cumulative effect". The fact that the petitioner had been subjected to the above disciplinary proceedings was not mentioned by the petitioner in his application to the Public Service Commission. The matter seems to have been noticed, as seen from the Office-note in the files of the High Court (handed over at the hearing) some time after the application was forwarded. On an Office-note it was ordered that the Commission be addressed drawing its attention to the fact of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and of its effect to permanently debar him from holding any judicial office, and stating that the petitioner's application cannot be entertained. Then followed the telephonic message and the letter to the Commission On 12-2 75 the petitioner presented an application to the High Court, stating that there was no entry in his confidential after the proceedings evidenced by Ext. P2 disqualifying him permanently from holding any judicial post, and that he understood that some such adverse entry had recently been made in the confidential record and prayed that the said adverse entry be expunged. The Office-note, and the Registrar's note in the file, and the file itself, indicate that this was treated as an application to review the punishment meted out in 1969. (The petitioner's prayer was quite different). In that basis the Chief Justice made a note and directed speedy circulation of the cyclostyled relevant notes to the available judges. On the result it was decided on 2 41975 by the Chief Justice's order to write to the Commission that the petitioner's application was wrongly forwarded by the High Court and to dismiss the application dated 12 21975, of the petitioner. The telephonic message of the Registrar to the Commission on 2 4 75 and the letter dated 3 41975 followed immediately. 4. The telephonic message of the Registrar to the Commission on 2 4 75 and the letter dated 3 41975 followed immediately. 4. In the above circumstances, by amendment on CMP. No. 2754 of 1976, the petitioner prayed to quash Ext. P6 passed by the Public Service Commission, as the same was an order passed subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. The application for amendment has been allowed. 5. The petitioner's Counsel contended that the punishment of permanently debarring him from holding any judicial office was not imposable in law, and had not been imposed in fact, on him, and that the communication to that effect made to the Commission by the Registrar was unjustified and improper; that the petitioner's application having been forwarded by the High Court, the said communication should not have been sent by the High Court without affording the petitioner an opportunity for explanation; and that the result of the High Court's action was that the petitioner did not have a fair and proper interview by the Commission, and therefore the whole selection was vitiated. It was also argued that even if the punishment of permanently debarring him from holding any judicial office had in fact been imposed by the High Court, in law, it could only take effect as a disbarment for a term of five years, which had spent itself on the date of his application to the Public Service Commission and that therefore the petitioner was quite competent to apply, and the High Court representation to the contrary was unjustified and improper 6. We have extracted Para.5 and 8 of Ext. P2. We do not think that on the terms of Ext. P2 there was any permanent debarring of the petitioner from holding any judicial office. The order only stated that the petitioner was reduced in rank to the post of Bench Clerk (his substantive rank at that time in the High Court Service) and that his reversion from the post of Sub Magistrate was permanent. This impression that there was no permanent debarring from holding any judicial office, is only confirmed by the nothings on the High Court file which led to Ext. P2. and a few other circumstances to which we shall immediately refer. This impression that there was no permanent debarring from holding any judicial office, is only confirmed by the nothings on the High Court file which led to Ext. P2. and a few other circumstances to which we shall immediately refer. In the nothings at pages 102 and 103 of file No. 82-35620/65 the Administrative Judge (Raman Nayar, J ) had noted that the effect of the punishment will no doubt be that he will not be appointed to any judicial office. But the learned judge added: "I do not think we can impose any such disqualification as a punishment". The file shows that this view was approved. It is also seen that in 1971 the petitioner was promoted in the High Court Service from the post of a Bench Clerk to that of a Section Officer, one of the feeder categories for selection as Munsiff. 7. In addition to the above, we have the important consideration that a permanent disqualification or debarring from holding any judicial office is not one of the punishments recognised or sanctioned by the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. This perhaps was the reason why such a punishment was not recorded in the confidential register of the petitioner, yet another circumstance counted by the petitioner in support of his contention that such a punishment was not imposed. The absence of such an entry in the record is, surprisingly, noticed by the Deputy Registrar when the office attempted to alert itself and the Registrar in 1975 about the mistake in having forwarded the petitioner's application The Deputy Registrar then recorded that "the most unfortunate part of the situation is that the orders imposing the penalty had not been incorporated in the confidential records of the Officer concerned"; and the Registrar ordered to incorporate the copy of the order of punishment dated 131969 in the confidential records. The petitioner sought by his petition dated 12 2-1975 to have the adverse remarks in his confidential records expunged. That was treated as an application for review of the punishment imposed in 1969 and rejected. The office-note and the High Court's letter dated 3 41975 were on the basis that the petitioner had been permanently debarred from holding any judicial office. These developments and the confusion of thought they betray, were unfortunate. That was treated as an application for review of the punishment imposed in 1969 and rejected. The office-note and the High Court's letter dated 3 41975 were on the basis that the petitioner had been permanently debarred from holding any judicial office. These developments and the confusion of thought they betray, were unfortunate. It is inconceivable that a punishment eternally debarring a person from holding a judicial office, would have been imposed by the High Court. Attrition, atonement, and rehabilitation are among the many imponderables to be taken into account in evaluating human conduct, and an eternal disqualification ill-goes with a judicial mind. A lawyer struck off the rolls for the grossest professional misconduct has very often been readmitted to the rolls on proof of rehabilitation; and a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life has often been granted remission of his sentence for good conduct and good behaviour. Considering all these aspects, we think that an order of permanent disqualification of the petitioner from holding any judicial office was not imposable in law. And on the language of Ext. P2 it had not been imposed in fact on the petitioner. It only stated that the reversion from the post of Magistrate was, permanent. The High Court was wrong in telling the Commission over the phone and by letter that there was a permanent disqualification against the petitioner. 9. In this view, it is unnecessary to consider and finally pronounce on the submission made by Counsel for the petitioner that, even assuming a punishment of permanent disqualification had been imposed, it had in law got itself transmuted to a disqualification for a term of five years, which period was over by the time the petitioner's application was forwarded by the High Court to the Commission The argument was put this way. Ext. P2 order is dated 1-3-1969. Ext. P2 order is dated 1-3-1969. The Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, (Rule 11) was itself amended by G.O. dated 23 41973, making it clear that a permanent reduction in rank shall not enure beyond a maximum period of five years, and adding an explanatory note to sub-rule (1) as follows: Explanatory note "(This note is not part of the amendment but is intended to indicate its general purport) Rule 11 (1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, lays down the penalties, that may be imposed for good and sufficient reasons on a Government servant. Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower grade or post or time-scale whether in the same service or in other service, State or Subordinate, or to a lower stage in a time scale is one of the penalties prescribed in R.11(1) (v) of the said Rules. According to the note (1) under R.11(1) (v) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the reduction to lower grade or post may be either permanent or temporary fora specific period. Government have decided to abolish permanent reduction in service as a punishment and to limit such reduction from six months to five years. This notification is intended to achieve the above object." Petitioner's Counsel would contend that the above Explanatory-note was only clarificatory or declaratory, and therefore retrospective. He further contended that in any event the amendment by Ext. P3 G. O. of 23 41973 would operate on the petitioners' subsisting disqualification if any, and reduce it to the period contemplated by the note. On this basis it was submitted that the petitioner's disqualification had ceased to be effective on 131974 and that his application made subsequent to that date did not suffer from any infirmity. The argument appears plausible But, in the light of the view that we have taken, we consider it unnecessary to pronounce finally upon this aspect of the matter. 10. We have little doubt that the Registrar's communications to the Public Service Commission both telephonic and written were unjustified and improper and proceeded on a misconception. The result is that the petitioner cannot be said to have had anything like, a fair and proper interview by the Public Service Commission. The Commission's mind had been prejudiced by certain statements made to it, which were incorrect. The result is that the petitioner cannot be said to have had anything like, a fair and proper interview by the Public Service Commission. The Commission's mind had been prejudiced by certain statements made to it, which were incorrect. May be, the Commission was actually uninfluenced by what was communicated to it (Its subsequent action does not bear this out). But the impression is inescapable that, in the circumstances, the petitioner did not have a fair deal. We would here stress the uncontroverted averment in Para.9 of the petitioner's reply affidavit that he stood first in the written test conducted by the Commission. In answer to our specific enquiry at the time of the hearing, Counsel for the Commission stated that he was not in a position to controvert the statement. We are spared from having to make a final and definite pronouncement on the validity of the selections, as the petitioner himself did not press for this relief. 11. We cannot uphold the Commission's proceedings evidenced by Exts. P4 and P6. Copy of the application form, and also the original application form of the petitioner, were both made available at the hearing. Column No. 11 in the Annexure to the application, appears too general to fix on the petitioner a positive obligation to disclose his temporary service as a Sub-Magistrate, and the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the same. In any view, it appears inadequate to proceed against him threatening penal consequences for non-disclosure of particulars which had not been called for with precision and exactitude. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of C. M. P. No. 2754 of 1976 stated thus: "Column II of the annexure to the application does not really relate to an applicant who is already in Government service Assuming the said column is to be filled up by an applicant in Government service, this petitioner bona fide believed that the details to be supplied are only of the substantive post that he held in Government service. In this connection the petitioner begs to submit that two other applicants from the Section Officer's cadre in the High Court, Sri K. Karunakaran Nair and Sri P. N. Ramakrishnan Nair who have been assigned ranks 6 and 12 in Ext. In this connection the petitioner begs to submit that two other applicants from the Section Officer's cadre in the High Court, Sri K. Karunakaran Nair and Sri P. N. Ramakrishnan Nair who have been assigned ranks 6 and 12 in Ext. P1 ranked list and win were holding temporary post of Munsiff and Sub Magistrate respectively also had not supplied those details in Column No. 11 of the Annexure". Counsel for the Commission was not prepared to deny this averment regarding candidates who obtained rank Nos. 6 and 12 in Ext. P1 list. Above all, we have held that the penalty of permanent "disqualification from holding any judicial office was not imposable in law on the petitioner and had not been imposed in fact. The basis of action of the Public Service Commission in Ex. P4 which was that, as informed by the High Court, such a penalty had been imposed, was therefore unfounded. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the proceedings evidenced by Exts. P4 and P6 are unsustainable. 12. After conclusion of arguments and reservation of judgment on 17 61976, the case was posted "to be spoken to" on 21- 6 1976, at the instance of Counsel for Respondents 4 to 7. Counsel then submitted that there was no need to quash the selections, and Respondents 4 to 7 are prepared to surrender their ranks to the petitioner, who may well be placed as No. 1, leaving rank Nos. 2 to 5 for Respondents 4 to 7. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that although he had asked for the larger relief of quashing the selection of Respondents 4 to 7, and of quashing Exts P4 and P6, he would be prepared to confine his prayer to quashing Exts. P4 and P6 and deleting the word "provisional" from Ext. P1. We have given careful consideration to this aspect For myself, I am inclined to quash the whole selections and direct the Commission to re-do the selections of all the persons in Ext. P1 on a clean field as this is a case where one drop of poison has made the whole apple rotten. But my learned brother Balagangadharan Nair, J. has reservations on this aspect and is not for quashing the entire selections, but only for quashing Exts. P4 and P6. P1 on a clean field as this is a case where one drop of poison has made the whole apple rotten. But my learned brother Balagangadharan Nair, J. has reservations on this aspect and is not for quashing the entire selections, but only for quashing Exts. P4 and P6. Rather than send the case on this aspect alone to a third judge on a difference of opinion, in deference to my learned brother, I have decided to yield to his view. Respondents 4 to 7 have completed their course of training and been posted as Munsiffs. The petitioner, who sought to quash their selections, does not now press for that relief, but is content merely with quashing Exts. P4 and P6 and to delete the word 'provisional' against the petitioner in Ext. P1. Counsel for the Commission also stated that the Commission's freedom to deal with the petitioner's case afresh in the appropriate manner, should not be prejudiced. We accept this submission on behalf of the Commission. The petitioner succeeds now, because the basis of the information conveyed by the High Court to the Commission, and of action by the Commission, cannot be sustained. 13. We allow this Original Petition and quash Ext. P4 and P6 and direct that the word 'provisional' in Ext. P1 be deleted, But we make it clear that the Public Service Commission will be free to deal with the petitioner's case afresh, if so advised, in accordance with law on a proper and correct basis in regard to Ext. P2 proceed ings. There will be no order as to costs. Balagangadharan Nair J.: The result of quashing Ext. P6 is to restore the petitioner to his rank, No. 5 in Ext. P1 with of course the qualification'provisional'. The communication from the Registrar did not correctly embody the result of the disciplinary action against the petitioner and proceeded on a misconception. It was this communication that led the Public Service Commission to assign a'provisional status to the petitioner as appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. As the communication has to be ignored, the word 'provisional' put against the petitioner, which sprang from that communication, has no legal or factual basis. That being so, the word 'provisional' against the petitioner's rank has to be deleted, leaving the rest of Ext. P1 in tact. 2. As the communication has to be ignored, the word 'provisional' put against the petitioner, which sprang from that communication, has no legal or factual basis. That being so, the word 'provisional' against the petitioner's rank has to be deleted, leaving the rest of Ext. P1 in tact. 2. What disinclined me against an adjudication of the merits of the entire selection was the modification in the petitioner's prayer at the bearing when the case was posted for "being spoken to". The effect of that modification was that the petitioner did not want and of course no one else wanted Ext. P1 list to be quashed in its entirety. If the limited relief which was thus claimed could be granted to the petitioner,1 thought that such a course ought to be preferred to a different course that might upset the entire selection, a contingency that no party now wants.