N F NAGESH Vs. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was one of the applicants for selection for appointment for the post of Chief Librarians in the Department of the State Government, has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1, the Karnataka Public Service Commission ('the Commission' for short) to consider his case for selection as against a post reserved for scheduled caste.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Commission by its notificaf tion dt. 3-5-1979 invited applications for selection for appointment to the posts Chief Librarian. The petitioner submitted his application. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar,Haveri, to the effect that he belonged to 'Koraga' caste, which had been declared by the State Government as Backward Tribe in its order made under Cl. (4) of Art. 16 of the Constitution directing reservation of posts in favour of Backward Classes. After the petitioner submitted his application, the State Government by its order dt. 27-3-1980 (a copy of which was produced at the time of hearing) issued a clarification, with the approval of the Government of India, to the effect that the caste going by the name of 'Korava' or 'Koravar' was synonyms of sub-caste of 'Korama', which had been declared as Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Order issued under Arts. 341 and 342 of the Constitution. After the aforesaid order was issued, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to the effect that the petitioner belonged to 'Korama' caste, which was a Scheduled Caste. According to the petitioner, he also produced a similar certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Haveri Taluk, from which area the petitioner hailed, on or about 12-6-1981. The Commission interviewed the petitioner on 20-9-81. The list of selected candidates was prepared on 20-10-1981. The petitioner was not selected. In these circumstances the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) The stand taken on behalf of the Commission is that, as in the application the petitioner bad claimed that be belonged to Backward Tribe and had produced the necessary certificate in support thereof his case was considered as against a post reserved for Backward Tribe and as respondent 4, who also belonged to Backward Caste, had a better claim than the petitioner, he was selected.