H SESHADRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner having no other alternative remedy praying for a declaration that notification No. PGS 25/79-80 issued by the 2nd respondent- Sele tion Committee constituted under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges Sele tion for Post Graduate Rules. 1979, (her in after referred to as the Rules) is illegal and for further declaration that the petitioner is eligible for selection to Post Graduate Degree Course in M.S. (General Surgery) and consequently for a mandamus to the 2nd respondent-Selection Committee to select and admit him to the said course in General Surgery.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that In spite of his good performance at the interview, the Selection Committee has not awarded any marks to him in so far as the knowledge in the subject is concerned on account of the mala fides of the Chairman of the 3rd respondent-Selection Committee and therefore the selection of respondents 4, 5 and 6 is not in accordance with the Rules, as the petitioner would have scored higher marks had the Selection Committee awarded him some marks for the knowledge in the subject at the time of the interview. He has further contended that the selection of the respondents and failure to select him is in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules,

(3.) The Chairman of the Selection Committee is the 3rd respondent in this writ petition. He has denied the allegations made that he was actuated by any mala fides against the petitioner in awarding the marks The Court in numerous other writ petitions as well as in this writ peti tion has had occasion to have a thorough look at the records maintained at the interview and the marks awarded at that time. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner is not the only one who has been given nil marks for the knowledge in the subject. In. fact, the majority of the applicants for the course have been treated in the same manner as the petitioner in so far as the award of marks for the knowledge in the subject is concerned irrespective of the speciality or the ftculty chosen by them for prosecuting their Post Graduate Studies. In the light of the denial of mala fides by the Chairman on oath (affidavit filed) and having regard to the general pattern of marks awarded at the interview, there is no sub stance in the contentions urged in the writ petition that he has been singled out for hostile treatment and discriminated violating his fundamental rights under Art. 14 of the Constitution.