SHIVOGIGOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, identical relief are prayed for. The petitioners firstly wants this Court to strike down the recommendation made by respondent 2 - The Mysore Public Service Commission - under its No. G. 1365/63/64, dated 21 September, 1963, for appointment of candidates mentioned therein as Assistant Superintendents of Fisheries and Inspectors of Fisheries and further to issue a writ of prohibition to respondent 3 (the Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Government of Mysore, Bangalore), restraining him from giving effect to the recommendation made by respondent 2.

(2.) On 1 April, 1963 the Director of Fisheries sent a requisition to respondent 2 requesting it to make recommendation for filling up 25 posts of Assistant Superintendents of Fisheries and Inspectors of Fisheries, 4 of whom should belong to the backward classes, 4 from more backward classes, 4 from scheduled castes, 2 from scheduled tribes and the remaining 11 from other classes. The Public Service Commission found it difficult to comply with this requisition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Balaji v. State of Mysore , AIR1963 SC 649 , [1963 ]Supp1 SCR439 , wherein the Court struck down a Government order issued under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution reserving seats for backward classes, in the technical institutions on the basis of castes and further classifying the backward classes into backward and more backward classes.

(3.) The ratio of the decision is that a classification made solely on the basis of casts is bad in law and further the State has no right to go into the degrees of backwardness. The rule laid down in this case applied with equal force to reservation of post under Art. 16(4). Evidently, the requisition made by respondent 3 proceeded on the basis of G.O. No. GAD 83 SRR 61, dated 14 July, 1961, whereunder certain posts were reserved to backward and more backward classes of citizens. There can be hardly any doubt that the said reservation was wholly unsustainable. In view of the decision Balaji case AIR1963 SC 649 , [1963 ]Supp1 SCR439 (vide supra), the Government order in No. GAD 83 SRR 61 should be considered as being wholly invalid and without legal effect. We have no doubt in our mind that if the Public Service Commission had complied with the requisition received from respondent 3, this Court would have struck down is recommendation. Faced with such a situation, respondent 2 wrote back to respondent 3 as well as to the Government pointing out the difficulties in its way in making recommendation on the basis of the requisition received from respondent 3 and soliciting instructions in that behalf. Very curiously, the Government did not give any guidance to the Public Service Commission. Therefore respondent 2 called for application ignoring the reservation made in favour of the backward classes under G.O. No. GAD 63 SRR 61. In other words, it called for application for the 4 posts reserved and scheduled castes, 2 for scheduled tribes and for 19 posts by open competition. In response to that notification, various applications including that of the petitioners herein were received. After interviewing the qualified applicants, the Public Service Commission made its recommendation which were accepted by respondent 3, the appointing authority. The petitioners before us were not recommended by respondent 2 and consequently could not be appointed by respondent 3.