C. CHANNABASAVAIAH versus STATE OF MYSORE & OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 28-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

360 
C. CHANNA BASA VAIAH 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE & OTHERS 
September 28, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.AGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Cons1itu1ion of India, 1950--Ariicle 16-F.qua/ily of opportunity in 
matters relating to emp/oyment-Selt•ction of candidates receiving lower 
mar/cs than rejected candidates-Wllrther their appoi;uments valid when 
made on compromise in Court proceedings or when made on Govern .. 
1nent recon11ne11dation under Mysore Public Service Commission (Fune· 
tion) Rules, 1957, r. 4. /001-note to sub-r. (3). 
After ho1ding viva voce examination for direct recruitment to Class 
I and Class II posts relating to certain Administrative Services, the Mysore 
Public 
Service Commission published a list of 98 candidates who were 
selected and appointed. 
Subsequent to this announcement, the State Governn1ent sent. for 
the consideration of the 
Commis~ion. a list of twenty.four candidates 
and as the Commission approved of them. they were also appointed. 
In giving their concurrence the Commission purported to take pO\\·er from 
the foot-note to suh-r. (3) of r. 4 of the Mvsore Public Service Com-
mission (Functions) Rules, 1957. 
· 
Sixteen candidates, out of those \\'ho were not selected, filed peti-
tions in the High Court alleging violations of Arts. 14, 
l~ and 16 of 
Constitution. 
In the course of these proceedings, a compromise was 
effected and as a result of an undertaking given hy the Government 
before the High Coun. the si.ieen petitioners were also appointed. 
Thcrcaflcr, other candidates. who were not selected, instituted similar 
proceedings in the High Coun, 
hut their petitions 
were 
summarily 
dismissed. 
They, thereupon, filed the present petitions under An. 32 of 
the Constitution. 
Upon a direction of the Coun to the Mysore Slate 
Government. 
mark·lists prepared by the Public 
Service 
Commission 
af1er 
the viva 
voce tests were produced and these showed rh;.it all the candidates-
°'ce;:>t two who helonged to the scheduled castes in the first list of 98 
candidates--had secured marks higher than 56%. Some of the candidates 
who were 
appointed on the recommendation or the Government and 
those appointed by compromise in the High Court (excluding. three who 
were not interviewed et all), received lower marks and it was admitted 
that many of the petitioners, who v.•ere rejected, had 
obtained higher 
marks than some of the selected candidat"'. 
If ELD (i) Discrimination and Unequal treatment was eslahlished in 
the case of the J 6 candidates selected a~ a result of compromise before 
the High C'-Ourl. 
Their appointments could not be sustained since most 
of these candidates had obtained fewer marks than some of the rejected 
candidatei;. Three candidates had not attended the vi\•a voce test at all 
and there was nothing before the High Coun for comparing the re-
maining thirteen candidates with those who had failed in the selection. 
In such a case the coun should be slow to accept compromises unless 
it was made clear that what was being done did not prejudice anybody 
else. !364 E-H!. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
CHANNABASAVAJAH v. STATE (Hidayatllllah /.) 
361 
A 
,!ii) The ~o~-note to sub-r. (3) of r. 4 of the Mysore Public 
Service crunct1ons) Rules, 1957, on which reliance was placed to justify 
the appomtments of the 24 candidates selected at the suggestion of the 
Government, was not intended to bypass the selection based on merit 
but to cover a case of exceptional merit. These candidates had 
also 
obtained lower marks than some rejected candidates and their appoint-
~ents could not therefore be upheld since this amounted to discrimina· 
B !Ion and unequal treatment. [365 D-G]. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 81, 95 to 111, 
113-118, 140-142, 150, 151, 153-158, 159-165, 167, 168, 
169-172, 178, 179, 183, 199 and 205-207 of 1963. 
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
C enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
Petitioner in W. P. No. 81 of 1963 in Person (not Present). 
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners (in W. P. Nos. 95-111, 
113 to 118, 169-172, 183 and for the intervener. 
B. Parthasarathi, /. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
D 
Narain, for the petitioners (in W. P. Nos. 140-142 of 1963). 
E 
F 
Naunit Lal, for the petitioners (in W. P. Nos. 150, 151 to 
158, 167 and 168 of 1963). 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, B. R. L. Iyengar and 
B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.