(1.) By a notification prepared by the State Public Service Commission on 6 April, 1964. It was announced that a competitive examination would be conducted for recruitment of probationers for the posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers, class II. That notification stated that that examination shall consist of a written examination in general knowledge and a viva voce. After that examination was conducted, 31 persons were appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officers by notification made by Government on 4 September, 1965. On the basis of the results of that examination. The petitioner who was one of the candidates and who was not included in the list of selected candidates impeaches these appointments on more than one ground.
(2.) Before discussing the submissions in denunciation of the impugned appointments, we should mention that there are as many as five prayers in the writ petition. The first is that we should strike down rule 3 of the Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957, which according to the petitioner transgresses the provisions of Art. 4 of the Constitution. But Sri Havanur appearing for the petitioner informed us that the petitioner does not press this prayer.
(3.) The second prayer is that we should quash note (ii) to Para 4, of the notification made by the Public Service Commission that an examination would be conducted. The third prayer is that we should quash a notification of Government made on 16 September, 1963 which incorporates a formula for the determination of backward classes for purposes of Art. 16(4) of the Constitution. The fourth prayer is that we should quash the impugned appointments of respondents 3 to 33 which were made by Government by their notification dated 4 September, 1965. The next and the last prayer is that we should strike down S. 13 of the Mysore Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959. But Sri Havanur informed us that the petitioner does not press this part of the writ petition.