JUDGMENT : P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23599 of 2016 wherein he had challenged Ext.P11 show cause notice dated 20.1.2016 issued by the Regional Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kollam, calling upon him to show cause why his advice for appointment as Reserve Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation should not be cancelled, as also Ext.P13 order dated 10.6.2016 issued by the said officer cancelling such advice. By judgment delivered on 6.8.2016, a learned single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition. The appellant has, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. By a notification dated 15.7.2010, the Kerala Public Service Commision (“the Commission” for short) invited applications from eligible persons for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Reserve Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation” for short). Pursuant thereto, the appellant applied. He had in the application submitted by him stated that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community and that he is eligible for communal reservation. The petitioner has in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement of facts in the writ petition averred that A. Daniel, his grandfather, D.George, his father and Philomina, his mother all belong to the Latin Catholic community, that in the school records also he is shown as a member of the Latin Catholic community but due to an inadvertent mistake, in Ext.P4 Secondary School Leaving Certificate, though his religion is shown as Christian, his caste is wrongly shown as Paravan converted. He has averred that the entry in Ext.P4 regarding his caste status is a mistake and that he actually belongs to the Latin Catholic community and is eligible for reservation available to Other Backward Classes. He has averred that the entry in Ext.P4 regarding his caste status is a mistake and that he actually belongs to the Latin Catholic community and is eligible for reservation available to Other Backward Classes. He has further averred that Paravan community is a scheduled caste in the State of Kerala, that he has not availed any benefit available to persons belonging to the scheduled castes, that at the time of the practical test he could not produce a non-creamy layer certificate on account of the discrepancy regarding his caste status in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and therefore, he had to give a declaration at the time of the practical test (driving test) that he will not claim reservation as a member of the Latin Catholic community, that later, based on his claim in the application and the school records he was considered as a candidate belonging to the Latin Catholic community and his name was included in Ext.P5 ranked list which was published on 23.8.2012, that based on the inclusion of his name in the ranked list, the Commission advised him for appointment as per advice memo dated 26.2.2013, that thereupon, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation appointed him as Driver Gr.II as per Ext.P6 memorandum dated 24.5.2013, that after completion of training he was directed to report for duty before the Unit Officer, Punalur as per Ext.P7 memorandum dated 20.6.2013 issued by the District Transport Officer, Kottarakkara and that he has been in the service of the Corporation ever since that date. 3. The writ petitioner has also stated that he had in the meanwhile applied to have his caste status in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate corrected, that the Tahsildar, Karunagappally had after enquiry issued Ext.P9 certificate dated 7.6.2013 certifying that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community and that the religion and caste noted in his Secondary School Leaving Certificate are incorrect, that thereupon he caused Ext.P10 Gazette notification to be published to the effect that his caste has been wrongly entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. The petitioner has averred that while matters stood thus the Regional Officer of the Commission at Kollam issued Ext.P11 show cause notice dated 20.1.2016 calling upon him to show cause why his advice shall not be cancelled applying Rule 22(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and paragraphs 30(iii) and 30(ix) of the General Conditions, that he thereupon submitted Ext.P12 reply denying and disputing the allegation in Ext.P11 show cause notice that he had wrongly shown his caste as Latin Catholic community but the Regional Officer declined to accept the explanation offered by him and cancelled his advice by Ext.P13 order dated 10.6.2016. The appellant had in the writ petition challenged Ext.P11 show cause notice and Ext.P13 order cancelling his advice on the ground that the action taken for cancellation is barred by limitation. He also contended that he had not suppressed any material fact or claimed any benefit which was not available to him and therefore for that reason also, his advice is not liable to be cancelled. 4. The Commission resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit dated 18.7.2016. It contended that though the appellant had in the application claimed that he belongs to the Latin Catholic community which is eligible for communal reservation, he could not produce a non-creamy layer certificate to prove his caste. However, he was permitted to participate in the practical test subject to giving an undertaking that he would not claim the benefit of reservation available to the Latin Catholic community unless he produces a non-creamy layer certificate within the permitted time, that as he qualified in the practical test he was permitted to appear for the OMR test held on 31.5.2012 and based on the marks secured by him he was included in the ranked list published on 23.8.2012 with rank No.5645. The Commission also averred that as he had claimed to be a member of the Latin Catholic community eligible for reservation he was advised against the turn of Latin Catholic candidate. The Commission also averred that as he had claimed to be a member of the Latin Catholic community eligible for reservation he was advised against the turn of Latin Catholic candidate. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that on detailed scrutiny of the application and the documents submitted by the petitioner it was later found that though he had claimed reservation as a Latin Catholic candidate, in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate his caste is shown as Paravan converted, that on noticing the said fact the ranked list was revised treating him as an open market candidate as per erratum notification dated 6.2.2015 and consequently steps were taken to cancel his advice which was wrongly made. Relying on Rule 22(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and paragraphs 30(iii) and 30(ix) of the General Conditions forming part of the Gazette notification, it was contended that as the appellant had made a false statement in the application form and suppressed material facts relevant to the selection, his advice was liable to be cancelled. 5. The learned single Judge held, after considering the rival contentions that the petitioner had in the application wrongly claimed that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community and that on the facts it can only be viewed as a fraudulent act intended to mislead the Commission. The learned single Judge held that such being the situation, the petitioner cannot rely on Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 and contend that cancellation of advice cannot be made after expiry of the period of one year. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The appellant has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. 6. We heard Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Commission. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The appellant has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. 6. We heard Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Commission. Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted relying on Ext.P14 judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this court in Rajan S. v. State of Kerala ( 2007 (1) KLT 730 ) that members of Paravan community which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Kerala, on conversion to Christianity are treated as members of Other Eligible Community (OEC), that in the said judgment, the Division Bench has taken note of the fact that in Kollam District, persons belonging to the Latin Catholic community have obtained certificates stating that they are Paravan Christians, that Latin Catholic community consists of few sub divisions, one of which is known as Paravas/Paravar Christians, that they are mainly distributed in the coastal areas of Kollam district and that the traditional fisher folk belonging to the Christian Latin Catholic community has no relationship with the Scheduled Caste Paravan or Bharathar Community of Kerala and unless it is shown that their ancestors belong to Christian Parava community, they would not fall under Other Eligible Community. Inviting our attention to paragraph 6 of the said judgment, learned senior counsel submitted that the non-creamy layer certificate cannot be issued based on the caste noted in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, that the certificate issued by the parish priest is also not a binding evidence, that in the instant case the Tahsildar has in Ext.P9 certificate dated 7.6.2013 certified that the appellant belongs to the Christian Latin Catholic community which is included in the list of Other Backward Classes in the State of Kerala, that his caste status noted in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is incorrect and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the appellant had misled the Commission by claiming to be a member of the Latin Catholic community. Learned senior counsel submitted that a copy of Ext.P9 caste certificate was furnished to the Commission along with Ext.P12 reply, that a copy of the report submitted by the Village Officer which preceded the issue of Ext.P9 certificate, as also a copy of Ext.P10 Gazette notification were also produced before the Commission, but the Commission has, even without referring to the said documents, erroneously held in Ext.P13 order that the appellant is not a member of the Latin Catholic community and that he had in his application suppressed a material fact. 7. Inviting our attention to Ext.P2 extract from the school admission register issued by the Headmaster, Cherupushpam High School, Umayanalloor, Kollam, learned senior counsel submitted that in the said school records the community and religion of the petitioner are shown as Latin Catholic, that this entry was made on 12.1.1981 when he was admitted as a student in the said school, that the Tahsildar who is the competent authority to issue the caste certificate has after enquiry issued Ext.P9 certificate to the effect that the appellant is a member of the Latin Catholic community, that he has further certified that the appellant's caste and religion have been wrongly shown in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P4 and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the appellant had consciously made a false declaration knowing it to be false when he stated in the application for appointment that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community eligible for reservation. Referring to Ext.P11 show cause notice, learned senior counsel contended that the Commission has cancelled the appellant's advice on the allegation that he had wrongly claimed the benefit of reservation available to Latin Catholic community, that in Ext.P13 also the same reasoning has been given and that in the light of the materials on record, the allegation made in Ext.P11 show cause notice and the conclusion arrived at in Ext.P13 order that the appellant had wrongly claimed the benefits available to Latin Catholic community cannot be sustained. Learned Senior Advocate lastly submitted that as no fraud had been committed, the commission could not have cancelled the appellant's advice after the expiry of the period of one year stipulated in Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 8. Learned Senior Advocate lastly submitted that as no fraud had been committed, the commission could not have cancelled the appellant's advice after the expiry of the period of one year stipulated in Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 8. Per contra, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Commission contended that the appellant had wrongly claimed the benefit of reservation available to Latin Catholic community when in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate it had been stated that he is a Paravan Christian (Converted). Learned counsel contended that as the appellant had not made available a certificate to the effect that he will not fall in the creamy layer, he can only be considered as an open competition candidate and therefore, his advice against the turn of Latin Catholic community was mistakenly made. Learned standing counsel submitted relying on Rule 22(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and paragraphs 30(iii) and (ix) of the General Conditions that the appellant who had suppressed material facts and furnished wrong information, cannot rely on the provisions contained in Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, to contend for the position that as more than one year has passed after he was advised, his advice cannot be cancelled. 9. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. A reading of the impugned judgment discloses that the learned single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the appellant had furnished wrong information in the application filed by him and claimed the benefit of reservation available to the Latin Catholic community. The learned single Judge has held that the conduct of the appellant in applying for and obtaining Ext.P9 certificate from the Tahsildar and in causing publication of that fact in Ext.P10 Gazette notification is clear and conclusive proof of the fact that at the time of submission of the application in the year 2010 he did not belong to Latin Catholic community. The learned single Judge has also proceeded on the basis that it cannot also be said that the mistake committed by the appellant is an innocent mistake and that his act can only be treated as a fraudulent act intended to mislead the Commission. 10. The learned single Judge has also proceeded on the basis that it cannot also be said that the mistake committed by the appellant is an innocent mistake and that his act can only be treated as a fraudulent act intended to mislead the Commission. 10. Rule 3(c) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, stipulates that 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. It is also stipulated that on such cancellation the appointing authority shall terminate the service of the candidate. The first proviso to Rule 3(c) however stipulates 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 a period of one year from the date of such advice. The appellant was advised for appointment as per advice memo dated 26.2.2013. Following that advice he was appointed on 24.5.2013. On the terms of Rule 3(c) above referred to, the cancellation of advice and the subsequent termination of appointment had to be made within one year from the date of advice, viz; one year from 26.2.2013. The Commission had not invoked the power under Rule 3(c) to cancel the appellant's appointment, evidently for the reason that such action was not taken within one year from the date of advice. Instead, it proceeded to invoke the power available to it under Rule 22(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure as well as paragraphs 30(iii) and 30(ix) of the General Conditions. 11. Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure reads as follows: “22. Candidates who are found guilty of the following items of misconduct shall be liable for disqualification for being considered for a particular post or department from applying to the Commission either permanently or for any period or the invalidation of their answer scripts or products in a written, practical test or the initiation of criminal or other proceedings against them or their removal or dismissal from office or the ordering of any other disciplinary action against them if they have already been appointed, or any one or more of the above. (i) Any attempt by or on behalf of candidates applying for selection by the Commission to influence the Chairman or any Member of the Commission or the Experts or Examiners who assist the Commission or to canvass support for their selection. (ii) Any attempt to influence the Staff of the Office of the Commission to do any undue favour to them or to divulge any information which is to be kept secret until it is officially released under the orders of the Commission. (iii) Making of any false statement in the Application form or its Annexure or any document produced in connection with a selection or suppression of any material fact relevant to the selection from the Commission. (iv) Production of any false or tampered document before the Commission or the tampering with any document produced before the Commission in connection with a selection after their production. (v) Any attempt to prefer any false complaint before the Commission about a rival candidate in a selection. (vi) Making any false allegation against the Chairman or any other Member of the Commission or any Experts or Examiner who assists the Commission or any member or the Staff of the Commission in connection with a selection. (vii) Any improper behaviour in connection with any interview or examination held by the Commission. (viii) Tampering with any answer book in an Examination conducted by the Commission or writing anything in such answer book in any manner which in the opinion of the Commission would lead to the identification of the candidate against the instructions contained in the answer book. (ix) Any other conduct which, in the opinion of the Commission, is likely to affect the fair and just selection of candidates by the Commission.” 12. The Commission has in the case on hand relied on clause (iii) of Rule 22 on the premise that the appellant had in his application made a false statement that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. On the terms of Rule 22(iii), the consequences mentioned therein can follow only if the appellant had made a false statement in the application form or its annexure or in any document produced in connection with the selection or suppressed any material fact relevant to his selection from the Commission. On the terms of Rule 22(iii), the consequences mentioned therein can follow only if the appellant had made a false statement in the application form or its annexure or in any document produced in connection with the selection or suppressed any material fact relevant to his selection from the Commission. The allegation in Ext.P11 notice is that the appellant obtained the reservation benefit available to Latin Catholic community but had not proved that he belongs to the Latin Catholic community. 13. Paragraph 30 of the General Conditions forming part of every notification issued by the Commission reads as follows: “30. Warning.-Candidates who are found guilty of the following items of misconduct are liable to be disqualified for being considered for a particular post of debarment from applying to the Commission either permanently or for any period or the invalidation of their answer scripts or products in a written/practical test or the initiations of criminal or other proceedings against them or their removal or dismissal from office or the ordering of any other disciplinary action against them if they have been appointed on or any one more of the above. (i) Any attempt by or on behalf of candidates applying for selection by the Commission to influence the Chairman or any Member of the Commission or the Experts or Examiners who assist the Commission or to canvass support for their selection. (ii) Any attempt to influence the Staff of the Office of the Commission to do any undue favour to them or to divulge any information which is to be kept secret until it is officially released under the Orders of the Commission. (iii) Making of any false statement in the application form or any document produced in connection, with selection or suppression of any material fact relevant to the selection from the Commission. (iv) Production of any false or tampered document before the Commission or the tampering with any document produced before the Commission in connection with a selection after their production. (v) Any attempt to prefer any false complaint before the Commission about a rival candidate in a selection. (vi) Making any false allegation against the Chairman or any other Member of the Commission or any Expert or Examiner who assist the Commission or any Member of the Staff of the Commission in connection with a selection. (v) Any attempt to prefer any false complaint before the Commission about a rival candidate in a selection. (vi) Making any false allegation against the Chairman or any other Member of the Commission or any Expert or Examiner who assist the Commission or any Member of the Staff of the Commission in connection with a selection. (vii) Any improper behaviour in connection with any interview or examination held by the Commission. (viii) Tampering with any answer book in an examination conducted by the Commission or writing anything in such answer book in any manner which in the opinion of the Commission would lead to the identification of the candidate against the instructions contained in the answer book. (ix) Any other conduct which in the opinion of the Commission, is likely to affect the fair and just selection of candidates by the Commission. (x) Electronic gadgets such as Mobile Phones, Blue tooth, Walkman etc. are prohibited from being used inside the examination halls. Candidates who possess such gadgets inside the examination halls are liable for punishment including invalidation of answer scripts by the Commission.” The Commission has in Ext.P11 show cause notice referred to and relied on clauses (iii) and (ix) of paragraph 30 besides relying on Rule 22(iii) above referred to. Except clause (x), the rest of the stipulations in paragraph 30 are identical to Rule 22 above referred to. In other words, it is evident from a reading of Ext.P11 notice that the Commission has proceeded against the appellant on the allegation that he had suppressed a material fact relevant to the selection from the Commission. The allegation is that he had falsely claimed that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. Though clause (ix) of paragraph 30 is also referred to, the facts constituting the petitioner's conduct which would attract clause (ix) are not set out with clarity. 14. A reading of Ext.P9 certificate discloses that the appellant belongs to the Christian Latin Catholic community which is included in the list of Other Backward Classes in the State of Kerala. The certificate proceeds to state further that the caste and religion noted in the appellant's SSLC Book (Ext.P4 in the instant case wherein it is stated that he is a Christian -Parava convert) are incorrect. The certificate proceeds to state further that the caste and religion noted in the appellant's SSLC Book (Ext.P4 in the instant case wherein it is stated that he is a Christian -Parava convert) are incorrect. The fact that a section of the Latin Catholic community in the coastal areas of Kollam district is known as Paravas/Paravan Christian has been taken note of by this court in Rajan S. (supra). The Division Bench has in the aforesaid decision also held that the caste noted in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is not binding evidence to determine the caste status. It is in this background that we have to examine the case set out by the appellant in the writ petition as regards the circumstances in which his caste was wrongly entered in Ext.P4 Secondary School Leaving Certificate. In our considered opinion, in view of Ext.P9 certificate, the Commission cannot any longer contend for the position that the appellant is not a member of the Latin Catholic community. A reading of Ext.P11 show cause notice would indicate that the Commission has proceeded on the basis that the appellant had wrongly claimed the benefit available to Latin Catholic community. The case set out by the Commission in Ext.P11 is that as he is not a member of the Latin Catholic community, he was not entitled to be advised. The said reasoning is reiterated in Ext.P13 order as well. Except for the last two paragraphs of Ext.P11, Exts.P11 and P13 are identically worded. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P13 order that the Commission has not even considered Ext.P12 reply submitted by the appellant. Instead, the Commission acted mechanically when it reiterated the allegations in Ext.P11 and issued Ext.P13 order. The Commission has no case either in Ext.P11 or in Ext.P13 that the appellant belongs to the creamy layer or that his advice is liable to be cancelled for non-production of the non-creamy layer certificate. The case set out by the Commission is that the appellant is not a member of the Latin Catholic community. In the light of the materials on record, the only conclusion possible as regards the caste status of the appellant is that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. The case set out by the Commission is that the appellant is not a member of the Latin Catholic community. In the light of the materials on record, the only conclusion possible as regards the caste status of the appellant is that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. Such being the situation, it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed material facts relevant to the selection from the Commission when he claimed that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. In fact, he had only stated the true and correct fact. 15. Though it was contended before us that he had not produced a non creamy-layer certificate and therefore his advice was liable to be cancelled, we are of the opinion that on that score action could have been taken against him only under Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, and not under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure or paragraph 30 of the General Conditions. Rule 22 and paragraph 30 of the General Conditions are applicable only in cases where the candidate is guilty of misconduct of the various kinds mentioned therein. Rule 3(c) applies in cases where the Commission mistakenly advises a candidate without the candidate having any role to play in the Commission of the mistake. If the appellant was wrongly advised against the turn available to a Latin Catholic candidate otherwise than in the merit quota (meaning thereby that he was advised against the reservation turn of a Latin Catholic candidate) overlooking the fact that he had not produced the non-creamy layer certificate, it is a mistake attributable exclusively to the Commission and cannot be said to be due to a false claim made by the appellant. Consequently, the Commission ought to have taken steps to cancel the appellant's advice within one year from the date of advice. It is only in cases where the candidate was guilty of objectionable conduct of the various kinds mentioned in Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and paragraph 30 of the General Conditions that the Commission can take steps beyond the period of one year stipulated in the first proviso to Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 16. 16. The question whether Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure will override the provision contained in Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Appukuttan Pillay v. Kerala Public Service Commission ( 1984 KLT 880 ). Appukuttan Pillay, an Advocate practicing at Quilon applied for appointment as Assistant Personnel Officer in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, pursuant to a notification issued by the Commission. One of the qualifications stipulated was that the candidates should have practical experience of not less than two years after obtaining their academic qualification, in State Government or Central Government or a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Appukutan Pillay had produced a certificate to prove that he had the requisite experience. Based on his claim, he was selected and advised for appointment. He was in due course appointed as Assistant Personnel Officer in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited. More than a year later, pursuant to a complaint received by it, the Commission caused an investigation to be made by its Vigilance Wing regarding the experience claimed by Appukuttan Pillay. It thereupon came to the conclusion that he was not a full time employee of the company which had issued the certificate. Consequently the Commission issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his name should not be removed from the ranked list and his advice cancelled. Overruling the objections raised by Appukuttan Pillay, the Commission proceeded to remove his name from the ranked list and also cancelled his advice. Appukuttan Pillay thereupon filed a writ petition in this court contending inter alia that the action taken by the Commission is barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. The Commission justified its action relying on Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. After referring to Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and the terms and conditions in the notification inviting applications, the Division Bench held in Appukuttan Pillay (supra) as follows: “2. …. The Commission justified its action relying on Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. After referring to Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and the terms and conditions in the notification inviting applications, the Division Bench held in Appukuttan Pillay (supra) as follows: “2. …. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the Commission to R.22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of procedure which deals with the procedure in regard to candidates who are found guilty of certain items of misconduct. Those rules are admittedly not statutory rules and are framed for the guidance of the Public Service Commission. The terms and conditions in the notification subject to which the applications are invited are only reproductions of the contents of R.22 of the Rules of Procedure. It is not as if in the matter of inviting applications and making advices the Kerala Public Service Commission was entering into any contract with the candidates. These conditions will operate only subject to the rules and therefore despite the notice given that action will be taken for misconduct that must be subject to the limitations in R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. In this case that would be subject to the limitation in the first proviso and the action if at all taken must be within one year. The learned single Judge has not noticed this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the Original Petitions. 3. R.3(c) does not admittedly apply to the case and was not invoked by the Commission because the action taken was beyond the period of one year. If that be so no resort can be made to such action only because the notification refers to the right of the Commission to take such action. As already mentioned such action should necessarily be subject to the provisions of law.” 17. The issue again arose before another Division Bench of this court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Hareendran ( 1999 (2) KLT 63 ). In that case, the dispute arose pursuant to a notification issued by the Commission inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (various departments) in all the revenue districts. It was stipulated in the notification inviting applications that a candidate should not apply for more than one district. In that case, the dispute arose pursuant to a notification issued by the Commission inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (various departments) in all the revenue districts. It was stipulated in the notification inviting applications that a candidate should not apply for more than one district. It was further stipulated that if a candidate gets selection by applying to more than one District in the same category, his/her selection will be cancelled and disciplinary action will be taken. Hareendran, one among the candidates was selected for appointment as Lower Division Clerk in Thiruvananthapuram District. Based on his ranking, he was advised for appointment in the Department of Treasuries. Later, the Commission received a complaint to the effect that his name was included in the ranked list prepared for the same post in Wayanad District. The Commission after verification found that the said allegation is true. It also noticed that he had in the application filed in respect of Thiruvananthapuram District stated against column No.17(b) that he had not applied for appointment in any other district. On noticing that the candidate had furnished wrong information and had applied for two districts in response to its notification contrary to its terms, the Commission issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his advice shall not be cancelled. The candidate submitted a reply stating that he had submitted the application for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Wayanad District hurriedly and had a doubt whether he had signed the application and thinking that his application would not be admitted in the Wayanad District Office, he had applied for Thiruvananthapuram District. He however conceded the fact that he had appeared for the written test in both the Districts. He had even admitted the fact that his application in respect of Wayanad District was defective and he was permitted to cure the defect. After entering a finding that the candidate had played fraud on it, the Commission decided to delete his name from the ranked list and to cancel his advice made on 10.8.1990. The candidate successfully challenged the action taken by the Commission before this court by filing O.P.No.10625 of 1991. After entering a finding that the candidate had played fraud on it, the Commission decided to delete his name from the ranked list and to cancel his advice made on 10.8.1990. The candidate successfully challenged the action taken by the Commission before this court by filing O.P.No.10625 of 1991. The main contention raised by him was that the impugned action is barred by limitation, for the reason that the cancellation of advice was beyond the period of one year stipulated in Rule 3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. On appeal by the Commission, a Division Bench of this court held that where a candidate has practiced fraud, the period of limitation stipulated in Rule 3(c) will not apply. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “From a plain reading of R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and the first proviso thereto, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has misdirected himself in treating the false information furnished by the first respondent as a 'mistake' thereby bringing the case within the scope of the aforesaid Rule. In the process learned single Judge lost sight of the crucial fact that the period of limitation provided under the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will be attracted only in case of advice made by the Commission under a mistake on its part, in which case cancellation of advice for appointment shall be made within a period of one year from the date of such advice and will have no application in a case where an applicant has played fraud on the Commission by furnishing false information as in the present case. On the facts disclosed, we have no doubt in our mind that the first respondent perpetrated fraud on the Commission by giving a false answer against column No.17(b) of the application submitted by him suppressing the fact that he had applied for selection in respect of Wayanad District also knowing fully well that in case a candidate gets selection by applying to more than one District for the same post, his selection is liable to be cancelled and he would also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Viewed in the context of fraud, the first respondent cannot be beard to say that Ext. Viewed in the context of fraud, the first respondent cannot be beard to say that Ext. P4 is barred by limitation as provided under the first proviso to R.3(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as the said bar of limitation applies only to a case of mistake committed by the Commission and not to a case of fraud being played on the Commission. A party to a fraud cannot be permitted to take advantage of a Rule providing for limitation on the power of the Commission to cancel an advice if it is subsequently found that such advice was made on some mistake. The mistake on the part of the Commission and fraud practised on the Commission are different things. Whereas limitation will apply to the former, the same will not apply to the latter. It is settled by a catena of decisions that all acts of fraud are void. Some times it has been said that a benefit obtained by fraud is nullity, some times that it can be set aside. Lord Cottenham said: "It is true that if a case of fraud be established, Equity will set aside all transactions founded upon it, by whatever machinery they may have been effected, and notwithstanding any contrivances by which it may have been attempted to protect them. (See Modern Law Review, Vol. 18 Page 441).” The writ appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside. Though the decision of the Division Bench in Appukuttan Pillay (supra) was brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided Hareendran (supra), the decision in Appukuttan Pillay (supra) was distinguished on the ground that in that case no fraud was practiced on the Commission and therefore Rule 3(c) alone would govern. 18. The situation in the case on hand is not similar to the situation in Hareendran (supra). Though the Commission contended that the appellant had falsely claimed to be a member of the Latin Catholic community leading to his erroneous advice, we are not, for the reasons stated earlier, persuaded to accept the said contention. 18. The situation in the case on hand is not similar to the situation in Hareendran (supra). Though the Commission contended that the appellant had falsely claimed to be a member of the Latin Catholic community leading to his erroneous advice, we are not, for the reasons stated earlier, persuaded to accept the said contention. We have in paragraph 14 supra, held that in the light of the materials on record, the only conclusion possible as regards the caste status of the appellant is that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had suppressed material facts relevant to the selection from the Commission when he claimed that he is a member of the Latin Catholic community. We have also taken note of the fact that the Commission has no case either in Ext.P11 or in Ext.P13 order that he was wrongly advised against the turn of a Latin Catholic candidate overlooking the fact that he had not furnished a non-creamy layer certificate. Such a contention was however raised before us in the course of the arguments. We have answered that contention in paragraph 15 supra by holding that if that be the case, action could have been taken only under Rule 3(c) and not under Rule 22 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure or paragraph 30 of the General Conditions for the reason that it is a mistake attributable exclusively to the Commission and is not based on any false claim made by the candidate. In the case on hand, Ext.P11 show cause notice was issued, more than two years after the appellant was advised for appointment. Rule 3(c) cannot therefore be invoked in the case on hand. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to succeed. We accordingly allow the writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, allow the writ petition and quash Exts.P11 and P13. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.