(1.) This writ petition is by a candidate who is an aspirant for a civil post under the state government and the selection of candidates for the posts is being conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission [KPSC] a constitutional authority for recruitment of the posts in the state government.
(2.) Petitioner had appeared for the written test and thereafter the interview conducted by KPSC for the post of gazetted probationary officers, group-A and B 2011 recruitment process. Later, petitioner having come to know that in publishing the marks obtained by the petitioner and other candidates in the interview by KPSC, because of certain directions issued by the state government to KPSC, further proceedings in the process of recruitment has come to a standstill and complaining that it has affected the interest of the petitioner and questioning the stalling of the proceedings at the behest of the first respondent chief electoral officer, petitioner has presented the present writ petition raising various grounds.
(3.) Apart from merits, submission of Sri Nitin, learned counsel for petitioner, is that in this writ petition several constitutional issues are raised and therefore notwithstanding the bar which otherwise normally operates such as in respect of the appointment to the post under the state government, it is the administrative tribunal which has jurisdiction, but in the present writ petition, interesting issues, particularly the scope of the power to be exercised by the election commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution of India being an issue and also the question of one constitutional authority issuing directions to another constitutional authority and particularly the state government's power, authority or lack of it to issue directions or sending any communications in the nature of direction to KPSC, another constitutional authority arise for examination and therefore this court should examine the matter within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.