GOPIVALLABHA IYENGAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are temporary Government employees appointed by the Excise Commissioner. Under the Notification No. GAD 42 ORR 63, dated 8th October 1963, the Governor of Mysore prescribed the cadre and the number and character of the posts borne in the Mysore State Excise Service. In respect of the recruitment of Excise Inspectors, 50 per cent are to be recruited by direct recruitment. One of the qualifications prescribed is that the applicant should have obtained a degree of University established by law in india or should possess a qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent to such degree. The Mysore Public Service Commission (Second respondent) by a Notification dated 28th May 1969, bearing No. R (1) 457 69-70 PSC. , called for applications froi. i the candidates who are qualified for the posts of Excise Inspectors (Junior) in the Excise Deptment, government of Mysore. The number of vacancies is about 80. All the petitioners are qualified to apply for the advertised posts, as they satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed under the relevant Mysore Excise department Service Recruitment Rules. In paragraph 11 of the Mysore public Service Commission Notification, it is slated that recruitment to these posts shall be made by selection and after an interview conducted by the Commission in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions supuated in the Mysore State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the Rules ). This Notification is under Rule 4 Clause (2) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules of 1957 The second respondent, viz , the Mysore public Service Commission, prepared an eligibility list of candidates, from the applicants for the posts of the Excise Inspectors, and have called for interview about 320 cardidates. . The list of such candidates was prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the applicants in the qualifying examination, viz. , the degree examination. The petitioners are not included in the eligibility list, for the reason that they do not come within the list of 320 candidates included in the list so prepared. The second respondent has called for interview only those candidates who are in the list, for purposes of selection as provided under Rule 4 (2) of the Mysore State civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 The petitioners are aggrieved by their exclusion from the list resulting in their not being called for the interview. It is further stated that the list of the eligible candidates for the interview was made in pursuance of Rule 5 of the rules The petitioners, have therefore, filed these writ petitions praying that Rule 5 of the Rules be struck down as being violative of Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution of India and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to interview the petitioners for the advertised posts of Excise Inspectors.

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that 80 posts of Excise Inspectors are to bo filled up. In response to the notification dated 28tb Mav 1969, there were as many as 5000 applications. It is further stated that all the applications were scrutinised in accordance with the Rules and a list of candidates eligible for interview was prepared. It is mentioned that the percentage of marks of candidates eligible for interview was 49. 26 per cent (open competition), 47. 66 per cent (Backward Classes) and 44. 25 per cent (Scheduled Caste) and above. As the petitioners secured less than the above percentage of marks, they were not entitled to be included in the list of candidates entitled to be interviewed and therefore, they were not called for the interview by the second respondent.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the respondents that Rule 5 of the Rules is not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned High Court Government Pleader app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document