Judgment :- 1. A very short point arises for consideration in this Original Petition. Is the Public Service Commission obliged to state details of the mistake on the basis of which action is taken by the Commission to cancel the advice for appointment in exercise of its powers under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules? 2. Petitioner was advised for appointment as Junior Lecturer (Sanskrit General) in the Collegiate Education Department by issue of Ext. P1 dated 23-7-1985. That advice was sought to be cancelled by Ext. P4 notice dated 20-1-1986. That notice was in the following terms: "You were advised for recruitment as Junior Lecturer (Sanskrit General) on Rs. 470-830 in the Collegiate Education Department as per the letter cited But on further verification, it is found out that the advice made on your recruitment was by mistake on the part of this office. Hence the Commission have ordered to cancel the advice on your recruitment as Junior Lecturer (Sanskrit-General) as per R.3(c) of the General Rules of Kerala State A Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. You are therefore requested to show cause why the advice made for your recruitment to the above post should not be cancelled as per R.3(c) of the General Rules of Kerala State And Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. Your reply should reach this office within 15 days from the date of this letter failing which action for cancellation of the advice will be taken on the presumption that you have nothing to state in this regard." 3. Apart from the statement, that the advice Ext. P1 was caused by a mistake on the part of the office of the Public Service Commission, Ext. P4 did not contain any detail which would have enabled the petitioner to submit his explanations in relation thereto. He, therefore, naturally asserted, that there was no mistake as would justify cancellation of her advice in Ext. P1. Petitioner was heard in person on 22-5-1986; and thereafter Ext. P6 order was issued. Even in that order, the Commission did not disclose the particular mistake which was committed by it, which resulted in proceedings for cancellation. He, therefore, naturally asserted, that there was no mistake as would justify cancellation of her advice in Ext. P1. Petitioner was heard in person on 22-5-1986; and thereafter Ext. P6 order was issued. Even in that order, the Commission did not disclose the particular mistake which was committed by it, which resulted in proceedings for cancellation. After recital of the facts leading to the issue of the notice, the explanations etc., the Commission stated: "In the above circumstances, you are informed that the advice made on your recruitment to the above post as per this office letter of even no dated 23-7-1985 is hereby cancelled." 4. The only point which counsel for the petitioner urges is that the Public Service Commission was obliged to disclose particulars of the mistake so as to enable the petitioner to know and effectively meet the reason for the proposed cancellation. Counsel submits that in the absence of such particulars, the opportunity contemplated by R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will be an empty formality. 5. Shri T.P. Kelu Nambiar, Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, rightly concedes that what is visualised by R.3(c) of the Rules is an effective opportunity and not an empty formality. Cancellation of advise for appointment by a constitutional functionary like the Public Service Commission is a matter of great moment and shall not be reduced to an inconsequential matter of procedure. He therefore submits that the notice, Ext. P4, and the order Ext. P6, in so far as such disclosure was not made are apparently unsustainable. He may be correct in his submission that the Commission had good reason to take the action it did. I do not think that it is for me now to consider the existence or validity of the reason. The fact remains that those were not disclosed to the petitioner at any of the relevant stages. 6. It cannot be disputed that the cancellation of the advice for appointment involves serious civil consequences to the candidate. Admittedly, R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules contemplates an effective opportunity to the candidate to counter a proposal for cancellation of the advice for appointment; Such opportunity can be effective, only if the reasons which induced the issue of notice proposing cancellation are disclosed to the candidate. Admittedly, R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules contemplates an effective opportunity to the candidate to counter a proposal for cancellation of the advice for appointment; Such opportunity can be effective, only if the reasons which induced the issue of notice proposing cancellation are disclosed to the candidate. At least if this was disclosed to the candidate in the final order, it may, perhaps, be possible for the candidate to challenge the correctness of the cancellation in other appropriate proceedings. In the present case, even that opportunity has been denied to the petitioner. 7. It is, therefore, essential that Ext. P6 order of cancellation is set aside. I do so If the Public Service Commission proposes to cancel Ext. P1 advice in favour of the petitioner for his appointment, it has to issue a fresh notice indicating the specific reason for such cancellation under R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The Commission may have to pass final order on a consideration of the objections which the petitioner may file in answer thereto. The Original Petition is allowed as above. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Issue photo copies of this judgment to counsel on both sides on usual terms.