Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J.: These are fiftyfive writ petitions under Art. 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. The petitioners who were applicants for some of the posts were unsuccesful while others were appointed. In some of the petitions the successful candidates are joined as respondents. The facts are as follows :

By a Notification dated September 26, 1959, the Mysore Public Service Commission announced that a competitive 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. On September 5, 1960 the Public Service Commission modified the earlier Notification and instead of holding an examination announced that the selection would be made solely on the results of a viva-voce test. The petitioners characterised this change as opposed to the Mysore Administrative Service Recruitment Rules, 1957 but during the hearing of this petitions this ground of attack was abandoned perhaps in view of what happened later.

The Public Service Commission duly held the viva-voce interviews and on July 29,1961 they published a list of ninety-eight candidates who they announced were selected. After the announcement of the results the State Government sent for the consideration of the Commission a list of twenty-four candidates and as the Commission approved of them they were also appointed on March 7, 1962. In giving their concurrence the Commission purported to take power from a foot-note added to sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957. Sixteen candidates who were not selected, filed petitions under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore. On November 26, 1962 there was a compromise and the Government undertook to appoint the petitioners before the High Court. Of these thirteen had attended the viva-voce test but three had not been called for it. In this way there were three setes of appointments, the first of ninety-eight candidates, the second of twenty-four candidates and the third of sixteen candidates. There were in all 1777 applicants who were called for the viva-voce test, A very large number of the applicants was not called for the test and the High Court of Mysore in the petition of the three petitioners who had not 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. It may be pointed out that at the first viva-voce test eightyeight candidates and at the second test ten candidates were selected, thus making the total number ninety-eight.

Encouraged by what had happened to those who had petitioned to the High Court, the other candidates who had not succeeded applied for writs under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Their petitions were summarily dismissed by the High Court. They, thereupon, filed the present petitions under -Art. 32 of the Constitution and that is how these fiity-five petitions are before us.

2. 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. Though numerous allegations of nepotism were made the arguments before us were confined to the consideration of the respective merits of the candidates selected and unselected in the light of the mark-lists produced in this Court. From the mark-lists it appears that the eighty-eight candidates who were first selected secured marks betwen 56 per cent and 87 per cent, except 2 (No. 87 L. Sharadamma and No. 88 B. Shamanaik) who belonged to the scheduled castes and wh