Judgment :- 1. The appeal is by the Kerala Public Service Commission against the judgment of a learned judge in O.P. No. 3088 of 1976 'reported in 1977 KLT. 776. The appellant by a notification dated 2 91975 invited applications for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The recruitment was a special recruitment for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, for two vacancies. The writ petitioner applied on 110 1975. A ranked list was prepared by the Commission which was to have effect from 16 11976. Two candidates were advised in the ranked list, one a scheduled caste and the other a scheduled tribe. The advice was on 22-1-1976. The writ petitioner was one of the two candidates advised as rank No. 15 in the list and the first among the scheduled tribes. He joined on 11-3-1976. At the time of his application, he was an Inspector of Central Excise in the Central Excise Office at Vandiperiyar. This fact was not shown either in the application form or in its annexure. For failure to do so, Ex. P1 memo was issued to him to show cause why he should not be permanently debarred from recruitment by the Public Service Commission and why the advice made for his recruitment should not be cancelled under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. After receipt of Ex. P2 explanation and consideration of the same, by Ex. P4 order dated 5-6-1976, the Commission ordered that the petitioner's name be deleted from the ranked list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was also ordered under R.3(c) of the General Rules that the advice for recruitment of the writ petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police be cancelled. It was further ordered that the writ petitioner be debarred. from recruitment to Public Service for a period of three years from 5-6-1976. Two days earlier, by Ex. P3 dated 3-6-1976 the advice of the petitioner for appointment was cancelled and another candidate was advised in his place. By Ex. P5 dated 10-6-1976, the Government followed cancelling the temporary appointment of the petitioner and terminating his period of training. The writ petition to quash Exts. P3 to P5 orders was allowed by the learned Judge. P3 dated 3-6-1976 the advice of the petitioner for appointment was cancelled and another candidate was advised in his place. By Ex. P5 dated 10-6-1976, the Government followed cancelling the temporary appointment of the petitioner and terminating his period of training. The writ petition to quash Exts. P3 to P5 orders was allowed by the learned Judge. The learned judge's reasoning in short was that under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules which was relied on to sustain the action impugned, the mistake on the basis of which the cancellation of the advice for appointment was made by the Commission must be shown to have been such, but for which, the Commission would not have made the advice. As the learned judge was of the opinion that even if the writ petitioner disclosed his appointment as Central Excise Inspector that would not have made any difference on the Commission's advice for appointment, the learned judge took the view that R.3 (c) would have no application and that the cancellation made on the basis of the same was invalid and unsustainable. 2. R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules reads as follows: "3. Approved Candidates. (a) & (b): x x x x x (c) 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. The provisions in this sub-rule shall be deemed to have come into force on the 31st July, 1969." In addition to this, we would notice R.13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure which is as follows: "13. The provisions in this sub-rule shall be deemed to have come into force on the 31st July, 1969." In addition to this, we would notice R.13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure which is as follows: "13. A candidate who makes false statements before the Commission or in any of his applications submitted to the Commission or produces any false document shall be liable to be debarred from recruitment by the Commission to any appointment to the service under the State permanently or for such period as the Commission deems fit." In addition to the above statutory provision, we would call attention to certain vital terms in the form of the application to be submitted by the candidates for the recruitment in question and the Annexure which was to accompany the same. The first Note appearing at the top of the Form of application for selection required "to furnish full and correct particulars" etc. Column 19 of the application required the applicant to state whether he was in the service of the Central or State Government. Against the said column the writ petitioner stated "No". The consequential informations to be supplied under the sub-headings of the same column in case the applicant was an employee under the Central Government were avoided with the statement "not applicable" (N. A.). In the Annexure to the application, Column 11 again required particulars, if any, of employment under the Central Government or the State Government to be given. The entries against this column, again, were made in the same fashion as column 19 of the main application. Para.23(3) of the notification inviting applications stated that a candidate who gives false information in the application or wilfully suppresses any information from the Commission is liable to be removed or dismissed from the post to which he was appointed besides taking other appropriate action against him." There were also certain warnings set down at the top of the annexures to the application. We call attention to warnings (a) and (c) which read: "(a) The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in this Form will lead to disqualification of the candidate from employment under the Government or any other institution for which appointments are made on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission, besides rendering him liable for prosecution. (c) If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in this Form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him." In the light of the above provisions, we have to examine the question whether the action taken against the writ petitioner was justified or not. 3. We shall first deal with R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. That Rule shows a cancellation of the advice for appointment. The only condition needed for taking such action is that it must have been subsequently found by the Commission that the advice was made under some mistake. If there was a mistake and the advice was under a mistake the terms of the rule would be attracted. Are the requirements satisfied in the instant case? We think they are; and the learned judge, in our view, was wrong in holding otherwise. In the light of the conditions attached to the application and its Annexure, and the Notification for selection, to which we have called attention, it is clear that the writ petitioner's application was liable to rejection for non-disclosure of the relevant facts which had to be stated in the columns of the application and the annexure or for any false particulars furnished or omission to furnish particulars. The non-rejection of the application at the proper stage led to the consideration of the application on its merits, and eventually to the selection of the writ petitioner and his advice for appointment. These are the results of the mistake made by the Commission in dealing with the application. The Commission so said in Exts. P1 and P4; and the learned judge in Art.226 was not justified in saying that even if the mistakes were known the Commission would still have made the advice. There was, in our view, enough to invoke R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, and to justify the action taken under Exts, P3 and P4. Ext. P5 is consequential on Ext. P4. 4. The action is also justified under Para.23 (3) of the Notification for selection to which we have referred earlier. There was, in our view, enough to invoke R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, and to justify the action taken under Exts, P3 and P4. Ext. P5 is consequential on Ext. P4. 4. The action is also justified under Para.23 (3) of the Notification for selection to which we have referred earlier. That gives sufficient intimation to the candidates that those giving false information in the application or wilfully suppressing any information from the Commission are liable to be removed or dismissed from the service besides being liable for other appropriate action. The writ petitioner applied with full notice and knowledge of this condition; and must take the consequences that ensued for the withholding of information or for furnishing false information in the application. 5. We have also called attention to the warnings (a) at the top of the Annexure to the application. These lend further support to the conclusion at which we have arrived that the action taken against the writ petitioner was fully warranted by the facts and circumstances disclosed against him. 6. R.3(c) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules again embodies the requisite authority for the action under Ext. P5. We have already extracted the Rule. The non-obstante clause with which the Rule opens is quite wide. Subsequent discovery in making the advice is the only condition for action. Consequential cancellation of the appointment itself is also authorised by the Rule. R.13 of the Rules of Procedure is only of limited help in barring further appearance at any selection by the Commission, permanently or for a limited period. 7. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge. We allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned judge and direct that O. P. No. 3088 of 1976, will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.