Judgment :- 1. The Kerala Public Service Commission by notification dated 18-8-1975, invited applications from qualified scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates for selection to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Kerala State Police Department. The petitioner submitted an application pursuant to such invitation. The recruitment was under R.17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That rule provides for special recruitment from among scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates. 2. Pursuant to the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was advised for appointment for the second vacancy. Pursuant to that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police and he joined duty on probation on 11-3-1976 While so, on 30-3-1976, the first respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission, issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the advice tendered by the Commission for his appointment should not be cancelled under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and further why he should not be permanently debarred from recruitment by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The action proposed by the Commission was because the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that he was Inspector of Central Excise at the time he made his application for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. There was a column provided in the application form against which he had to give the information about holding the post of an Inspector of Central Excise and never the less he did not disclose this fact. In his reply to the notice issued by the Commission, the petitioner explained that he came across the notification inviting application only about two days prior to the last date for making the application, since he had no time to route his application through his Department, he thought of applying directly and that was the reason why he did not mention the fact that he was employed as an Inspector of Central Excise The Public Service Commission considered this explanation and found it to be not true, for, his application had been received by the Commission much earlier and therefore his case that he came to know of the recruitment only two days prior to the last date was evidently not true. The Commission, therefore, found that the advice was vitiated by mistake and for that reason was liable to be cancelled. The Commission, therefore, found that the advice was vitiated by mistake and for that reason was liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, Ext. P4 order was passed by the Public Service Commission canceling the advice of the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police and also debarring him from seeking advice for appointment through the Public Service Commission for a period of three years. It is this order which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. The authority for cancelling the advice once tendered by the first respondent to the Government is said to be R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That sub-rule provides: "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the commission shall have the power to cancel the advice for appointment of any candidate to any service if it is subsequently found that such advice was made under some mistake. On such cancellation, the appointing authority shall terminate the service of the candidate: Provided that the cancellation of advice for appointment by the Commission and the subsequent termination of service of the candidate by the appointing authority shall be made within the period of probation of the candidate." 4. The main controversy in this case concerns the construction of the rule. That the information furnished by the petitioner in his application was not true is conceded. The petitioner was employed at the relevant time and he did not disclose this information in his application form. Would that be sufficient to invoke R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules? That is the question calling for an answer. There was no doubt a mistake and that by reason of the wrong information conveyed by the entries in the application form. But evidently it could not be said that the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police because the Public Service Commission was not aware that he was an Inspector of Central Excise. In other words, it could not be said that had the Public Service Commission known that the petitioner was an Inspector of Central Excise he would not have been appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. That information even if furnished would not have in any way acted against the course of advice which the Public Service Commission would have adopted. That information even if furnished would not have in any way acted against the course of advice which the Public Service Commission would have adopted. If the scope of R.3(c) is to enable cancellation of advice being made when it is subsequently found that the original advice was made under some mistake it appears to me that the mistake must be of such a nature as could have caused the advice to be made. There may be cases where candidates would not have obtained qualifying marks in their examinations but they might have represented otherwise in their applications, cases where they misrepresent that they are in possession of qualifications required for eligibility but they would not be really possessing them and cases where they may represent that they belong to particular caste or community by virtue of which they may be entitled to get the appointment but they do not belong to such caste or community There may be similar other cases where the description would be of material relevance in determining eligibility for appointment or suitability for selection. In such cases it could very well be said that but for the description relied on or the information acted upon by the the Public Service Commission which is found subsequently to be mistaken the advice would not have been made. But there may be mistakes which may not be material in the decision as to making the advice. A candidate may assume that his father's name is not good enough for presentation in the application and he may improve upon it. He may furnish similar such other information not with a view to persuade the Public Service Commission to act upon it so as thereby to advise for appointment. I do not think it could be said that in those cases the mistakes, however serious or slight it be, could be brought within R.3(c), for, that rule mentions "if it is subsequently found that such advice was made under some mistake." This expression necessarily conveys the idea very emphatically that it should be subsequently found that in making the advice the Commission acted under some mistake. Any mistake not relevant in the causation of advice by the Commission may not fall within the Rule. 5. Any mistake not relevant in the causation of advice by the Commission may not fall within the Rule. 5. I am not for a moment indicating that the conduct of the person who makes erroneous representations in regard to very relevant matters is to be found to be innocent That is not the matter with which I am concerned in this case I am concerned in this case only with the power to take action under a specific rule. So long as the power of the Kerala Public Service Commission to cancel an advice is founded on R.3 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, it is sufficient to examine the scope of that rule for the purpose of determining whether the action taken in this case cancelling the petitioner's advice was warranted by the provisions of the rule. Evidently the Public Service Commission has acted on the assumption that any mistake in the application is sufficient to warrant cancellation of an advice tendered by it. That cannot be. It must be qualified in the manner mentioned in the judgment as the plain terms of the rule indicate. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Public Service Commission v Jayadev, (1977 KLT. 85) dealt with the question as to the scope of mistake that can be brought within R.3 (c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. It was contended in that case that the rule can be invoked only where the mistake is that of the party and not of the Public Service Commission. That decision has no bearing on the question before me as that did not concern the controversy as to whether the advice tendered was liable to be revoked for reason of a mistake not relevant in reaching the decision as to the advice. 7. The petitioner in this case was working as an Inspector of Central Excise. To better is prospects in life he took advantage of the invitation for the special recruitment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. As a member of the scheduled tribe he was entitled to the benefit of such special recruitment under R.17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. He was advised, he joined as a Deputy Superintendent of Police and was undergoing training when he was faced with Ext P4 order which ousted him from his office. As a member of the scheduled tribe he was entitled to the benefit of such special recruitment under R.17A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. He was advised, he joined as a Deputy Superintendent of Police and was undergoing training when he was faced with Ext P4 order which ousted him from his office. The consequence was that he lost the job for which he was selected by the Public Service Commission as also the job which he left on joining the new post. Not that these circumstances in any way influence me in coming to the decision in this case. If R.3 (c) had been worded differently so as to enable cancellation on account of any mistake, possibly, in spite of the hardship to the petitioner he would have obtained no relief from this court and there would have been no cause for regret since the tragedy was of the petitioner's own making. 8. In consequence Ext. P4 order in so far as it cancels the advice for appointment of the petitioner has to be quashed. 9. There is another part of Ext. P4 order. That is debarring the petitioner from being advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission. That operates prospectively from 5-6-1976, the date of the order. That order is sought to be justified by reference to R.13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. It is not shown that the said part of the order could be successfully challenged. The petitioner's counsel contends that it could not be operative for the reason that the order operates prospectively and the petitioner has no reason to approach the Public Service Commission for any selection or recruitment so long as he is holding the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 10. In the result the cancellation of the advice of the petitioner and consequent cancellation of the appointment by Ext. P5 order are quashed. The petition is allowed as above. No costs in the circumstances. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to the petitioner's counsel on payment of usual charges and to counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission free of cost. Allowed.