M A MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner calls in question the validity of the provisions of the Karnataka State Financial corporation Cadre and Recruitment Rules insofar as the same prescribe 100 marks out of a total of 250 for viva-voce. Selection and appointment of respondents 4 and 5 as Managers (Finance and Accounts) in the Corporation has also been assailed.

(2.) THE petitioner as also respondents 4 and 5 were working as Deputy Managers in the respondent-Corporation. In July 1995 two posts of Managers (Finance and Accounts) were advertised by the Corporation for direct recruitment. One of these posts was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates while the other was to be filled up in the General Merit Category. The qualification prescribed for selection was AGA, Grad. , CWA, CFA, MBA or pgdm from Indian Institute of Managements with specialisation in finance and 2 to 4 years experience in a reputed organisation. The last date prescribed for receipt of the applications was 29th of July, 1995. Apart from the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5, a large number of other candidates also applied of which 16 were from the Scheduled Caste category while the remaining 59 were General Merit candidates. The candidates were called for a competitive test on 1st of October, 1995, which was taken by three scheduled caste and 26 General merit candidates. Out of the General Merit candidates, the first five, in the order of merit, were invited for interview besides the three scheduled caste candidates who had appeared in the test. The Selection Committee headed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, recommended Sri N. Venkatesh, respondent 4, for appointment against the scheduled caste vacancy, whereas one Sri Uday Kumar Shetty was appointed in the General Merit category. The committee also recommended the 5th respondent who was a scheduled caste to be placed in the waiting list besides one other candidate in the General Merit category. Appointment orders, were then issued in favour of respondent 4, and Sri Udaya Kumar Shetty. Out of the waiting list, the corporation appointed the 5th respondent, against a post, that fell vacant in the mean time and was as per the roster to go to a scheduled Caste candidate. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the selection and the appointment of the respondents 4 and 5 besides challenging the validity of the cadre and recruitment rules, insofar as the same prescribe a viva-voce weightage of 100 marks out of a total of 250 for such recruitments.

(3.) MRS. Nagarathna, Counsel appearing for the petitione rargued that the weightage given to the viva-voce was on the higher side. She urged on the authority of a decision of the supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v State of haryana and Others, that allocation of 40% of the total marks for purposes of interview was excessive and would therefore vitiate any selection made on the basis thereof. She also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Madhukar bakru Pingal v Rajendra D. Gaikwad and Others, in which case marks reserved for viva-voce was according to her fixed by the supreme Court at 15% leaving the remaining 85% to be allocated on the basis of a written examination.