The main legal point established is that in matters of appointment and reservation, the authorities must adhere to natural justice principles and consider certificates issued by competent authorities before rejecting a candidate's claim.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who was one of the applicants for selection for appointment for the post of Chief Librarians in the department of the State Government, has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1, the Karnataka Public Service Commission ('the Commission' for short) to consider his case for selection as against a post reserved for scheduled caste.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Commission by its notificaf tion dt. 3-5-1979 invited applications for selection for appointment to the posts chief Librarian. The petitioner submitted his application. Along with the application, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar,haveri, to the effect that he belonged to 'koraga' caste, which had been declared by the State Government as Backward Tribe in its order made under cl. (4) of Art. 16 of the Constitution directing reservation of posts in favour of backward Classes. After the petitioner submitted his application, the State government by its order dt. 27-3-1980 (a copy of which was produced at the time of hearing) issued a clarification, with the approval of the Government of India, to the effect that the caste going by the name of 'korava' or 'koravar' was synonyms of sub-caste of 'korama', which had been declared as Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Order issued under Arts. 341 and 342 of the Constitution. After the aforesaid order was issued, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, bangalore South Taluk, to the effect that the petitioner belonged to 'korama' caste, which was a Scheduled Caste. According to the petitioner, he also produced a similar certificate issued by the Tahsildar, haveri Taluk, from which area the petitioner hailed, on or about 12-6-1981. The commission interviewed the petitioner on 20-9-81. The list of selected candidates was prepared on 20-10-1981. The petitioner was not selected. In these circumstances the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE stand taken on behalf of the commission is that, as in the application the petitioner bad claimed that be belonged to Backward Tribe and had produced the necessary certificate in support thereof his case was considered as against a post reserved for Backward Tribe and as respondent 4, who also belonged to Backward Caste, had a better claim than the petitioner, he was selected.

( 4 ) SRI K. Chennabasappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that in view of the clarification issued by the State Government in its order dated 27-3-1980 and the subsequent production of the certificate by the petitioner to the effect that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to have considered the case of the petitioner as against a post reserved for scheduled Caste and if it was so considered he had every chance of being selected.

( 5 ) THE original records of the Commission have been produced. The records disclose that on 6-6-1981 the petitioner produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, dated 8-6-1981 to the effect that he belonged to korama caste, which is recognised as scheduled Caste under the Presidential order. On the application, a note was put up seeking orders as to whether the certificate be placed in his application and there was an order 'yes' below that. In the records there is also decision dated 28-11-1980 to the effect that as the petitioner had along with his application produced a certificate to the effecc that he belonged to Koragar community and therefore he was a Backward Tribe candidate and as the caste 'koraga' was not in the list of synonyms and sub-castes of Korama caste, his claim cannot be considered and he be treated only as a Backward Tribe candidate.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no difference between 'korava' and 'koravar' and in some of the certificates, namely, Annexures-A to A-3 and B, he pointed o