JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Kerala Public Service Commission against the judgment dated 21.8.96 in OP 16328/95. The first respondent herein filed Original Petition seeking to quash Ext. P2 order passed by the Public Service Commission whereby the advice for appointment of the first respondent as Junior Assistant/Cashier in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board ('KSEB' for short) was cancelled on the ground that she failed to report for duty pursuant to the order of appointment issued to her. The learned Single Judge was pleased to quash Ext. P2 and it was further directed that the first respondent be appointed as Junior Assistant/ Cashier in the KSEB. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Original Petition are as follows: First respondent's father was an employee of the KSEB they were staying in a house at Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent applied for the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier at the time when she was residing there with her parents. The father retired from service and thereafter shifted his residence to Cherthala. According to the first respondent, she had given instruction to the Post Master of Nalanchira post office to redirect all letters addressed to her in that address. The first respondent did not receive any advice memo from the Public Service Commission nor any appointment order issued by the Chief Engineer (Electrical General) of the KSEB. She received only Ext. P2 order by which her advice for appointment was cancelled. The first respondent contended that she was not aware of the advice memo or the appointment order and before cancelling the advice memo she was not heard personally. 3. The learned Single Judge held that there was no evidence to show that the appointment order was sent by registered post to the first respondent and the PSC was not satisfied that the appointment order so sent to the first respondent before passing Ext. P2 order. The learned Single Judge also held that the advice memo should have been sent to the first respondent by registered post and that the first respondent should have been heard before Ext. P2 order was passed. 4. We heard appellant's counsel, we are satisfied that there was negligence on the part of the first respondent and Ext. P2 order of cancellation was passed under such circumstances. P2 order was passed. 4. We heard appellant's counsel, we are satisfied that there was negligence on the part of the first respondent and Ext. P2 order of cancellation was passed under such circumstances. We are told that the first respondent has already been appointed as Junior Assistant/Cashier. We do not propose to interfere with the appointment. 5. Nevertheless, we do not think it would be justified in holding that the advice memo be sent by registered post. The Public Service Commission is handling large number of matters relating to appointment. Selection to various posts under the Government service, public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies is being done by the PSC. Thousands of persons are selected for various posts and advice memos are issued to candidates when the appointing authority reports vacancies of posts to be filled up. The PSC has to issue large number of advice memos to various candidates and if there is a direction to send such advice memos by registered post it will lead to unnecessary expenses and inconvenience. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the PSC would not be in a position to send all these advice memos by registered post. The local post office also would not be in a position to handle these matters and that would lead to inordinate delay in the matter of appointment. So, the directions contained in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge is modified and we hold that the advice memos to the candidates be sent only by ordinary post. But the appointment order, which is a vital document, shall always be sent by the appointing authority by registered post. 6. The learned Single Judge also held that before Ext. P2 order was passed, the PSC should have heard the first respondent. The cancellation of advice memo is ordered when the appointing authority reports that the candidate had not joined duty inspite of the fact that they had sent the appointment order by registered post. When there is a rule that the appointment order shall be sent by registered post it could only be assumed that the authorities have complied with that order unless proved otherwise. When there is a rule that the appointment order shall be sent by registered post it could only be assumed that the authorities have complied with that order unless proved otherwise. When the appointing authority reports that despite the issuance of the appointment order the candidate failed to report for duty, the Public Service Commission can very well cancel the advice memo and take further steps to fill up the non joining duty vacancies. If the Public Service Commission has to hear the candidate it would cause undue delay in filling up the non joining duty (NJD) vacancies. Moreover, the candidate need not be given double opportunity to support his claim. With the above observation, we dispose of the Writ Appeal.