Case: C. Channabasavaiah &amp; Others Vs. State of Mysore &amp; Others

By a notification dated September 26, 1959, the Mysore Public Service Commission announced that a competitive examination would be held for direct recruitment for Class I and Class II posts relating to certain Administrative Services and numerous applicants including the petitioners offered themselves as candidates. On September 5, 1960, the Public Service Commission modified the earlier notification and instead of holding an examination announced that the selection would be made solely on the results of a viva voce test. The petitioners characterised this change as opposed to the Mysore Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1957 but during the hearing of these petitions this ground of attack was abandoned perhaps in view of what happenedPublic Service Commission duly held the viva voce inter- views and on July 29, 1961 they published a list of ninety- eight candidates who they announced were selected. After the announcement of the results the State Government sent for the consideration of the Commission a Est of twenty-four candidates and as the Commission approved of them they were also appointed on March 7, 1962. In giving their concurrence the Commission purported to take power from a foot-note added to sub-rule (3) of r. 4 of the Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957. Sixteen candidates, who were not selected, filed petitions under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore. On November 26, 1962 there was a compromise and the Government undertook to appoint the petitioners before the High Court. Of these thirteen had attended the viva voce test but three had not been called for it. In this way there were three sets of appointments : the first of ninety- eight candidates, the second of twenty-four candidates and the third of sixteen candidates. There were in all 1,777 applicants who were called for the viva voce test. A very large number of the applicants was not called for the test and the High Court of Mysore in the petition of the three petitioners who had not been called for the viva voce test directed the Commission to call them and the Commission then called 203 candidates who were in the same category as the three petitioners in the High Court. It may be pointed out that at the first viva voce test eighty-eight candidates and at the second test ten candidates were selected, thus making the total number ninety eight.Encouraged by what had happened to those who had petitioned to the High Court, the other candidates who had not succeeded applied for writs under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Their petitions were summarily dismissed by the High Court. They, thereupon, filed the present petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution and that is how these fifty-five petitions are before us.

Reasoning:
The dispute, therefore, centres round twenty-four candidates selected at the suggestion of the Government of Mysore and sixteen candidates selected on a compromise before the High Court, three of whom were not even called for the viva vocethe case of the sixteen candidates first, it appears to us, that since most of these candidates had obtained fewer marks than some of the rejected candidates it is impossible to sustain their selection. To begin with it was wrong of the High Court to allow a compromise of this kind to be effected when it was patently obvious that three candidates had not attended the viva voce test at all and there was nothing before the High Court for comparing the remaining thirteen candidates with those who had failed in the selection. There were allegations of nepotism which had not been abandoned and we find now that most of these candidates do not rank as high as some of the rejected candidates. In such a case the court should be slow to accept compromises unless it is made clear that what is being done does not prejudice anybody else. To act otherwise opens the court itself to the charge that it did something just as bad as what was complained against. In our opinion. the appointment of these sixteen candidates cannot be accepted and the petitioners are entitled to claim that their marks should be compared with those obtained by the petitioners and the selection made on merit and merit alone. For this purpose, of course, the three candidates who were not called for the test would have to be called and marks given to them. Otherwise they cannot be considered atregard to the 24 candidates who were selected at the suggestion of the Government reliance is placed upon a foot- note added to sub-rule (3) of r. 4 of the Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957. That rule occurs in a Chapter headed "Recruitment by Selection". Under sub-rule (3) it is provided that the Public Service Commission shall consider all applications received and when necessary interview such candidates as fulfill the prescribed conditions and shall advise Government about those it considers most suitable for appointment. The foot- note then reads : N.B. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the Commission from considering the case of any candidate possessing the prescribed qualifications brought to its notice by Government, even if such a candidate has not applied in response to the advertisement of the Commission."In our opinion, the foot-note is not intended to bypass the selection based on merit. It is intended to cover a case of exceptional merit. These candidates had appeared at the viva voce test and some of them had obtained very poor marks indeed. The learned Attorney General attempted to show that twelve candidates were from the backward classes and four from the scheduled castes. That, in our judgment, is no justification for the selection in the manner it was actually done. It seems surprising that Government should have recommended as many as twenty-four names and the Commission should have approved of all those names without a single exception even though in its own judgment some of them did not rank as high as others they had rejected. Such a dealing with public appointments is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the working of the Public Service Commission, which is intended to be fair and impartial and to do its work free from any influence from any quarter. We did not allow learned counsel for the petitioners to bring before us allegations of nepotism etc., because, in our opinion, even without those allegations which it is not the practice of this Court to investigate unless a clear and strong case is made out, the manner of the selection and the respective ranking of these candidates justifies interference at the hands of this Court. The learned Attorney-General submitted that except for the two candi- dates from the scheduled castes, who have been described by name above, candidates who had obtained 56% and above marks need not be disturbed. We agree as to that for none of the peti- tioners reaches that figure. He could not justify all the cases below that marking, and we agree again with him that this is the only possible conclusion to draw from the mark-lists placed before us. We will accordingly allow these petitions and quash the appointments of the twenty-four candidates whose names are mentioned in Annexure C and the sixteen candidates whose names are mentioned in Annexure D to the affidavit of the Public Service Commission filed on August 4, 1964. Their selection was not proper and must be set aside.It is very unfortunate that these persons should be uprooted after they had been appointed but if equality and equal protection before the law have any meaning and if our public institutions are to inspire that confidence which is expected of them we would be failing in our duty if we did not, even at the cost of considerable inconvenience to Government and the selected candidates do the right thing. If any blame for the inconvenience is to be placed it certainly cannot be placed upon the petitioning candidates, the candidates whom this order displaces or this Court