LAWS(KER)-1989-6-15

JOHNSON Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Decided On June 14, 1989
JOHNSON Appellant
V/S
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the Public Service Commission competent to issue a notification confining the zone of consideration of candidates for appointment to a few out of the many eligibles is the question which arises for consideration in this Original Petition. The Rules do provide a simple affirmative as the answer. But in deference to the elaborate arguments which shri Sankaranarayana Iyer urged on behalf of the petitioners, I feel called upon to deal with the controversy in some detail.

(2.) THE first respondent has issued Ext. P1 notification inviting applications for appointment as Village Assistants in Pathanamthitta district. Persons who had passed SSLC Examination and Chain Survey Test alone were eligible to apply. Over 21,000 persons - to be exact 21,329-applied. THEre were only 65 vacancies. THE Public Service Commission rejected 526 applications for various reasons. THE second respondent issued Ext. P2 notification dated 7-9-1988 to the effect, that only candidates with specified percentage of marks were to be interviewed. Separate percentage of marks were specified, for open competition 53 %, scheduled castes 43 %, Muslims 48 %, Latin Competition 53 %, scheduled caste 43 %, Muslims 48%, Latin Catholics/anglo Indians 47%, Dheevara 43%, Nadar 50% and other Christians 48%. All scheduled tribe candidates were to be interviewed. Muslims, Latin Catholics/anglo Indians, Dheevara, Nadar and other Christians are some of the categories in "other backward classes", as provided in R. 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. THE third petitioner is an Ezhava, second petitioner belongs to one of the other backward classes, and the first petitioner is not entitled to any reservation. Admittedly, petitioners had only far less than the specified minimum marks for open competition, viz. , 53%. THEir complaint was that specified minimum marks were prescribed only for some of the "other backward classes" and not for some of the others like ezhavas. Petitioners filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P2 mainly on two grounds: (1) that respondents 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction to issue Ext. P2 notification varying the terms of eligibility as prescribed in Ext. P1; and, (2) that prescription of lower minimum percentage of marks for some only of the "other backward classes" is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. THEy therefore seek the issue of a writ of mandamus "to make the selections only on the basis of the qualifications set out in Ext. P1 notification without giving any concession or weightage not contemplated in the communal G. O. in force, or in Ext. Pl". THEy also seek a direction to the respondents not to make any selection on the basis of Ext. P2 notification.

(3.) THE next submission is that respondents 1 and 2 discriminated in favour of some and against other communities belonging to the common group "other backward classes". That submission is made on the basis of Ext. P2.