V SRIKANTHA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are temporary Government employees appointed by the Excise Commissioner. Under the Notification No. GAD 42 ORR 63, dated 8th October 1963, the Governor of Mysore prescribed the cadre and the number and character of the posts borne in the Mysore State Excise Service. In respect of the recruitment of Excise Inspectors, 50 per cent are to be recruited by direct recruitment. One of the qualifications prescribed is that the applicant should have obtained a degree of University established by law in India or should possess a qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent to such degree. The Mysore Public Service Commission (Second respondent) by a Notification dated 28th May 1969, bearing No. R(1) 457 69-70 PSC., called for applications froi.i the candidates who are qualified for the posts of Excise Inspectors (Junior) in the Excise Deptment, Government of Mysore. The number of vacancies is about 80. All the petitioners are qualified to apply for the advertised posts, as they satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed under the relevant Mysore Excise Department Service Recruitment Rules. In paragraph 11 of the Mysore Public Service Commission Notification, it is slated that recruitment to these posts shall be made by selection and after an interview conducted by the Commission in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions supuated in the Mysore State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the Rules). This Notification is under Rule 4 Clause (2) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules of 1957 The second respondent, viz , the Mysore Public Service Commission, prepared an eligibility list of candidates, from the applicants for the posts of the Excise Inspectors, and have called for interview about 320 cardidates.. The list of such candidates was prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the applicants in the qualifying examination, viz., the degree examination. The petitioners are not included in the eligibility list, for the reason that they do not come within the list of 320 candidates included in the list so prepared. The second respondent has called for interview only those candidates who are in the list, for purposes of selection as provided under Rule 4 (2) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 The petitioners are aggrieved by their exclusion from the list resulting in their not being called for the interview. It is further stated that the list of the eligible candidates for the interview was made in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Rules The petitioners, have therefore, filed these writ petitions praying that Rule 5 of the Rules be struck down as being violative of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to interview the petitioners for the advertised posts of Excise Inspectors.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that 80 posts of Excise Inspectors are to bo filled up. In response to the Notification dated 28tb Mav 1969, there were as many as 5000 applications. It is further stated that all the applications were scrutinised in accordance with the Rules and a list of candidates eligible for interview was prepared. It is mentioned that the percentage of marks of candidates eligible for interview was 49.26 per cent (open competition), 47.66 per cent (Backward Classes) and 44.25 per cent (Scheduled Caste) and above. As the petitioners secured less than the above percentage of marks, they were not entitled to be included in the list of candidates entitled to be interviewed and therefore, they were not called for the interview by the second respondent.

(3.) It is contended by the respondents that Rule 5 of the Rules is not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents at the outset submitted that the interpretation of and validity of Rule 5 of the Rules have been considered in a decision of this Court in K. Kama Reddy v. Mysore Public Service Commission (1969) 2 Mys.L.J. 66, and, in view of that decision, the petitioners' contention cannot be sustained. There is much force in this contention. In that decision, some of the petitioners sought a direction to the Mysore Public Service Commission to call them for interview and for grant of incidental reliefs. In the said decision(1), the Notification was in respect of the 13 posts of District Educational Officers in the Department of Public Instruction. As in the petitions now before us, the Notification contained a clause that the recruitment to the posts would be made by selection after an interview conducted by the Commission in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Rules. The contention urged was that Rule 5 of the Rules is invalid as Rule 4 prescribes that the recruitment shall be made on the basis of selection after interview by the Commission, and therefore, interviewing is the only test prescribed for selection and interviewing only some of the applicants and failing to call the other for interview is discriminatory and hence unconstitutional. It was further urged that even assuming that Rule 5 of the Rule is supported on the basis of reasonable classification, the classification it makes is, devoid of any nexus with the object of the selection, and therefore, the classification is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. These contentions were negatived by this Court. It is not contended before us that the prescription of a minimum educational qualification for the posts in question is not constitutional. It is not contended that the qualification prescribed is not a reasonable criterion or that there is no nexus between the minimum qualification and the object of the Rules of recruitment. As observed in the decision in State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 SC. 349, the provisions of Art. 14 or Art.'6 do not exclude the laving down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but thev can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. It is also an established proposition that when the number of posts available is much smaller than the number of applicants, the process of selection becomes inevitable. While observing that the entire set of rules should be read together, this Court in Rama Reddy's case (I) has taken the view that though Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes that the recruitment under these rules shall be made on the basis of selection after interview, there is no compulsion under the rules that every applicant was necessarily to be interviewed and that it is open, consistentlv with Art. 14 of the Constitution, to make a preliminary selection of persons eligible to be called for interview. In fact, it is observed that Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the preliminary selection and the criterion prescribed by the rule is perfectly intelligible and to say that there is no nexus with the object of the recruitment is to ignore the fact that the criterion is directly related to the performance of the candidates at the examination which is prescribed as the minimum qualification for appointment.