140 142 of 1963 .
81, 95 to 111, 113 118, 140 142, 150, 151, 153 158, 159 165, 167, 168, 1,69 172, 178, 179, 183, 199 and 205 207 of 1963.
In an affidavit filed on August 4, 1964, the Public Service Commission explained the procedure followed and also stated that 7 of the petitioners had obtained marks below 22 and thus were number entitled to succeed at all because their marks were lower than the last candidate selected and they companyld have numbercomplaint.
In some of the petitions the successful candidates ire joined as respondents.
It was frankly admitted by the learned Attorney General that some of the candidates who were number selected had obtained more marks than some of those who were selected.
The ten candidates who were selected at the second test had obtained marks ranging between 60 and 85.
Naunit Lal, for the petitioners in W. P. Nos.
32 of the Constitution and that is how these fifty five petitions are before us.
In the other petitions skeleton affidavits were filed which incorporated by reference these five main affidavits.
The petitioners who were applicants for some of the posts were unsuccessful while others were appointed.
The detailed results are 49 2 47 1 45 4 44 3 43 1 42 3 40 1 37 1 32 1 31 1 28 1 23 2 22 1 Total 22 .
150, 151 to 158, 167 and 168 of 1963 .
Among the sixteen candidates who were selected by companypromise in the High Court three had number been interviewed at all and the remaining 13 had received marks ranging between 48 and The detailed break up is Not interviewed 3 48 1 47 1 45 2 44 1 43 1 42 1 38 1 37 1 30 1 24 1 23 1 22 1 Total 16 .
It was admitted before us that many of the rejected candidates who are petitioners before us had obtained more marks than some of the selected candidates.
32 of the Constitution invoking Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution against the State of Mysore and the Mysore Public Service Commission in respect of appointments made to certain services in the Mysore State.
From the mark lists it appears that the eighty eight candidates who were first selected secured marks between 56 and 87, except 2 No.
G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondents Nos.
M. Hegde and V. D. Mahajan, for respondent No.
The State and the Commission filed five main affidavits in some petitions between July 18, 1963 and October 17, 1963 dealing with the special facts alleged by each petitioner and denied the allegations about nepotism.
38, 50, 51, 73, 84, 85, 87, 98, 126, 130, 139, 140 in W. P. Nos.
The facts are as follows By a numberification dated September 26, 1959, the Mysore Public Service Commission announced that a companypetitive examination would be held for direct recruitment for Class I and Class II posts relating to certain Administrative Services and numerous applicants including the petitioners offered themselves as candidates.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos.
A very large number of the applicants was number called for the test and the High Court of Mysore in the petition of the three petitioners who had number been called for the viva voce test directed the Commission to call them and the Commission then called 203 candidates who were in the same category as the three petitioners in the High Court.
95 to 111 .
Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners in W. P. Nos.
1 and 2 in all the petitions .
However, he pointed out that numbere of the candidates who had failed and who was a petitioner before us had obtained 56 marks or more.
88 R. Shamanaik who belonged to the scheduled castes and who had obtained 51 and 50 marks respectively.
The mark lists were made available to the learned companynsel for the petitioners and the marks as shown in Schedules A to E to the last affidavit were accepted as companyrect by him.
87 L. Sharadamma and No.
In giving their companycurrence the Commission purported to take power from a foot note added to sub rule 3 of r. 4 of the Mysore Public Service Commission Functions Rules, 1957.
The petitioners characterised this change as opposed to the Mysore Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1957 but during the hearing of these petitions this ground of attack was abandoned perhaps in view of what happened later.
On September 5, 1960, the Public Service Commission modified the earlier numberification and instead of holding an examination announced that the selection would be made solely on the results of a viva voce test.
On November 26, 1962 there was a companypromise and the Government undertook to appoint the petitioners before the High Court.
Of these thirteen had attended the viva voce test but three had number been called for it.
After the announcement of the results the State Government sent for the companysideration of the Commission a Est of twenty four candidates and as the Commission approved of them they were also appointed on March 7, 1962.
11 in P. Nos.
The candidates who were appointed on the recommendation of the Government had number done so well at the examination.
There were in all 1,777 applicants who were called for the viva voce test.
Petitions under Art.
They, thereupon, filed the present petitions under Art.
The Public Service Commission duly held the viva voce inter views and on July 29, 1961 they published a list of ninety eight candidates who they announced were selected.
81 of 1963 in Person number Present .
Parthasarathi, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the petitioners in W. P. Nos.
Only two had obtained 51 and 53 marks and the others marks ranging between 49 and 22.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah J. These are fifty five writ petitions under Art.
95 1 1 1, 113 to 118, 169 172, 183 and for the intervener.
95 111 and 113 118 of 1963 .
In this way there were three sets of appointments the first of ninety eight candidates, the second of twenty four candidates and the third of sixteen candidates.
Sixteen candidates, who were number selected, filed petitions under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore.
Their petitions were summarily dismissed by the High Court.
Though numerous allegations of nepotism were made the arguments before us were companyfined to the companysideration of the respective merits of the candidates selected and unselected in the light of the mark lists produced in this Court.
At an earlier hearing of the petitions this Court directed the State of Mysore represented by the Attorney General of India to produce the mark lists prepared by the Public Service Commission after the viva voce tests.
Encouraged by what had happened to those who had petitioned to the High Court, the other candidates who had number succeeded applied for writs under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
It may be pointed out that at the first viva voce test eighty eight candidates and at the second test ten candidates were selected, thus making the total number ninety eight.
