HANUMANTHAPPA H Vs. MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the judgment dated February 15, 1980 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P. Nos. 8868, 2731 and 5756 of 1976.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are: The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) invited applications for recruitment to 50 posts of Tahsildars from persons who are already in service of the State Government. A notification in this behalf was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated May 29, 1975. In response to the said notification the appellants and a large number of other candidates applied for selection to the said post. The selections were to be made in accordance with the Karnataka Administrative Service (Tahsildars) (Recruitment) (Special) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Rules') read with Rules 7 to 16 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules 1966 (hereinafter called 'the 1966 Rules'). The selections were to be made under the aforesaid Rules by conducting a written examination and also by holding a vivavoce test. 200 marks were prescribed for the written examination and 100 marks were prescribed for the viva-voce test to be conducted later. It was further prescribed that the candidates equivalent to 10 times the number of posts to be filled up should be called for personality test (viva-voce test), on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination. In doing so, reservation in respect of S.Cs and S.Ts., had also to be taken into account. On the basis of the merit in the written examination, the appellants were duly selected for attending the viva voce test and they accordingly appeared before the KPSC. However, when the select list of the candidates was published, the names of the appellants did not find a place therein. Aggrieved by their non-selection, the appellants filed writ petitions challenging the validity of the 1975 Rules as also 1966 Rules and sought for quashing the select list published on June 3, 1976. Upon hearing the parties, the learned single Judge did not find any merit in the petitions and accordingly they were dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

(3.) Sri Savanur, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 874 of 1980 mainly raised the following two contentions, viz., (i) the allocation of 100 marks (out of the total of 300 marks) for the viva voce test under Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules led to arbitrariness in the matter of final selection of candidates, and (ii) the mode of conducting the personality test by the KPSC was contrary to Rule 4(2) of the said Rules. Similar contentions were raised by Sri T.R. Rangaraju, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A, No. 955 of 1980. Sri Savanur in support of the first contention placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 487) and in Koshal Kumar Gupta vs. State of J & K (AIR 1984 SC 1056). Sri Brahmarayappa, learned Government Advocate urged that the observations in the said decisions cannot be pressed into service in these cases as the later decision of the Supreme Court has distinguished the decision in Ajay Hasia's case.