JUDGMENT : A.R. Lakshmanan, J. Heard Mr. Abdul Salam for the Appellant. 2. The Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. in O.P. 13601 of 1998 dated 27th July 1998 dismissing the Original Petition filed by the Appellant to call for the records relating to Ext. P-11 order passed by the Public Service Commission and to quash the same and for other allied reliefs. The learned Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the entire materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the Public Service Commission has rightly cancelled the advice of appointment in time since they found that a person having a higher rank in the main list was over looked and the Appellant was advised. One Sivaprasad was having rank No. 605 in the main list. He is a physically handicapped person. Therefore, he could not be appointed to the post of Watcher and on the basis of Ext. P-1 notification, he can be considered only for the post of Peon. When a post of Peon in the Co-operative Department arose, his claim ought to have been considered. However, due to a mistake, it was not done and the Appellant, whose name was included only in the supplemental list, was advised. Since evidently it is a mistake committed by the Public Service Commission, they are bound to correct the same and accordingly the Service Commission has rectified the mistake committed by them and cancelled the advice given in favour of the Appellant. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued the matter before us at length. According to him he was not given a reasonable opportunity by the Service Commission and since the procedure contemplated under the Rules has not been followed, the order passed by the Service Commission is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the Service Commission has no legal right to terminate his service since the appointing authority was the Registrar of Co-operative Society. Once he was appointed as a last grade servant, his service can be terminated only in accordance with Rule 19 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short 'the Rules'). 4. We are unable to accept or appreciate the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant. The relevant Rule, which is to be applied in this case, is Rule 3 of the Rules. 4. We are unable to accept or appreciate the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant. The relevant Rule, which is to be applied in this case, is Rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3, Part II of the Rules states that all first appointments to the service shall be made by the appointing authority on the advice of the Commission in respect of posts falling within the purview of the Commission and in all other cases by the appointing authority from a list of approved candidates prepared in the prescribed manner. Clause (b) of Rule 3 says that inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of approved candidates for any service (State or Subordinate) or any class or category in a service, shall not confer on him any claim to appointment to the service, class or category. Clause (c) of Rule 3 authorises the Service Commission to cancel the advice for appointment of any candidate to any service notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules if it is subsequently found that such advice was made under some mistake and on such cancellation, the appointing authority shall terminate the service of the candidate. The first proviso to Rule 3(c) says that the cancellation of advice for appointment by the Service Commission and the subsequent termination of service of the candidate by the appointing authority shall be made within a period of one month from the date of such advice. Second proviso to Rule 3(c) provides that a cancellation of advice for appointment under that Rule shall be made only after giving the candidate concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 5. In this case, immediately after the mistake was found out by the Service Commission, they issued a notice under Ext. P-9. Appellant submitted his objection to Ext. P-9 under Ext. P-10. Thereafter, Ext. P-11 was passed by the Service Commission cancelling the advice for appointment. Thereafter, the third Respondent, under Ext. P-12, has terminated the service of the Appellant within the period of one year from the date of advice. So, in our opinion, as per Rule 3(c) of the Rules, the Service Commission has the right to cancel the advice if the inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of approved candidates for any service or any class or category in a service has been done by mistake. So, in our opinion, as per Rule 3(c) of the Rules, the Service Commission has the right to cancel the advice if the inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of approved candidates for any service or any class or category in a service has been done by mistake. It is also made clear under Clause (b) that inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of approved candidates for any service or any class or category in a service shall not confer on the candidate any claim to appointment to the service, class or category. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the appointment can be cancelled only ass per the procedure contemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules cannot at all be accepted. The only relevant Rule which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case is Rule 3 of the Rules. In the instant case, the Service Commission issued notice of cancellation immediately after it is found out that the earlier advice was done by mistake. It is also not the case of the Appellant that the cancellation of advice for appointment by the Service Commission and subsequent termination of service of the candidate by the appointing authority have been done beyond the period of one year from the date of such advice. It is also not in dispute that an opportunity was given to the Appellant before cancellation of advice and the Appellant has also submitted his objections to the same. The Service Commission, on a consideration of the entire materials placed before it, cancelled the advice for appointment since the earlier advice was made under some mistake. In our opinion, the Service Commission as well as the appointing authority have acted within the framework of Rule 3 and, therefore, the action taken by them is in order. No interference is called for with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed.