RANGANATHACHAR AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a legal practitioner at Yelbarga in Raichur district; he is also functioning as an Assistant Government Pleader, there. He is one of the candidates that had appeared for the Munsif's examination held during the months of April and May 1965. That was an examination conducted by the Mysore Public Service Commission, in accordance with the Mysore Munsifs (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 134, and the proviso to Art. 309 of the constitution. Rule 12 of the rules requires that the names of candidates successful in the competitive examination shall be published in the Mysore Gazette by the Commission in order of merit; and it is further provided therein, that appointments shall be made of candidates in the order in which their names appear in the list. The list of candidates successful in the said examination held during the months of April and May 1965, was published in the Mysore Gazette, dated 3 June, 1965. That list shows the successful candidates in the order of merit; it is Ex. B. The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 14 in that list. While the petitioner was eagerly awaiting his appointment as a Munsif, in his turn according to the list, he was disappointed to find that he was not appointed and that, instead, persons at serial Nos. 15, 16 and 18 were appointed by the notification Ex. D, dated 14 March, 1966. They have been impleaded as respondents 2 to 4. On 30 March, 1966, the petitioner through his counsel, issued a letter to the Government calling upon the Government to appoint him above respondents 2 to 4 and inform him of the reasons why he had not been so appointed. As per Ex. E. The acknowledgment receipt, it will be seen that the said letter was received on 5 April, 1966. There was no reply to that letter. Thereafter, four more persons who were ranked as 19 to 22 in the list Ex. B, were appointed as Munsifs. They have been impleaded as respondents 5 to 8.

(2.) Rule 4 of the rules is as follows :

(3.) The petitioner had appeared before the medical board and has been given to understand that the medical board has found him physically fit for the appointment. He has alleged in the affidavit that he had an unblemished school and college career and that he was appointed as a Government Pleader in the year 1963 and again reappointed on the year 1965 by the Government Law Secretariat. It is also alleged by him that he has been appointed as the Government nominee for the Marketing Co-operative Society at Yelbarga; that he is the secretary of the local Bar Association for the last four years and that he commands the esteem of the other members of the Bar. He alleges that the refusal of the Government to appoint him to the post of a Munsif is arbitrary and is in violation of the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He prays that a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent 1 (the State) directing that he be appointed as a Munsif from the date on which respondents 2 to 4 were appointed and that his seniority be fixed above respondents 2 to 8 and if necessary, to declare that sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the rules is void.