Applying compensatory preference even at the stage of admission to the main examination is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, the procedure adopted by the Andhra Pradesh public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "service Commission") in preparing and publishing the list of candidates who ate entitled to appear for the main examination for Group I services is assailed as being illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances that generated this group of writ petitions are these; The Service Commission invited applications in August, 1983 to fill up 138 posts in Group I Services by direct recruitment. Out of 47,337 applications were found valid after scrutiny.

( 3 ) THE recruitment is made by selection on the basis of a scheme of competetive examination. The scheme of examination comprises of a written as well as an oral test in the shape of an interview The written test is in two parts. The first part is preliminary examination of screening test. It comprises of paper-1, general studies and mental ability (objective type), and the second part comprises of the main examination in Papers II to VIII consisting of General english, Genral studies and Optional Subjects. The maximum marks for the first paper in 150 and is held to screen the applicants for the main examination in paper II to VII. The total number of marks for the main examination is 1080 the third stage consists of a oral test for which 300 marks are allocated.

( 4 ) THE scheme of examination itself was prescribed by the State government in G. 0. Ms. No. 300 General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 18th May 1983, after consultations with the Service Commission. The Service Commission suggested the holding of a screening test as in the case of competetive examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Accordingly, the State Government issued the revised of examination for recruitment to Group-1 services.

( 5 ) 33, 238 candidates took the preliminary examination of screening test conducted on 8th January 1984. On the basis of the marks secured by the candidates ranking was given. Under the scheme of examination published in G. 0. Ms. No. 300 the number of candidates to be admitted to the final examination in papers II to VIII should be 15 times the total number of vacancies to be filled up. The Service commission permitted, 1,843 candidates to appear for the final examination in the papers II to VIII. But in choosing the number of candidates to be admitted to the final examination, the Service Commission did not follow the ratio of 1 : 15 or the ranking and admit to the main examination the first, 2,070 candidates calculated on the basis of 138 vacancies for which applications were called for. The candidates who secured 95 marks from the open competition list were not admitted to the main examination, while candidates belonging to the Backward class, scheduled Caste and scheduled tribe who secured 85 marks and less 69 were admitted to the main examination The petitioners question that the above action of the Service Commission in admitting candidates who secured 85 marks and less for the main examination and denying admission to the petitioners who secured 95 marks as wholly discriminatory and violate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the adoption of such a procedure in admitting candidates belonging to the Backward class who secured less marks to the main examination while denying admission to the other communities is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since the candidates belonging to the reserved communities are not only entitled to contest for the reserved vacancies but also for me posts in open competition. It is pleaded that when candidates who secured 85 marks and less were permitted to the main examination to compete for the open competition posts, denying such an opportunity to candidates who seeded 95 marks is violative of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document