LexSTATE OF MYSORE versus S. R. JAYARAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
STATE OF MYSORE
v.
S. R. JAYARAM
August 23, 1967
{K. N.
WANCHOO, C.J., R. S.
BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. ffEGDE, JJ.)
Civi! Service-Recruitment by
competitive examination-Indi-
cation by candi.date as to which post he prefers-Candidate entitled
to post because of his rank-State Government appointi!IQ him to
another post-State Government's power und~r r. 9(2) of the Mysore
Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers' Rules, 1959-If violative of
Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers' Rules 1959,
make provision for direct recruitment to several cadres in the State
Services on the basis of the result of a competitive examination.
Under the first part of r. 9(2), the candidates are required to
indicate in their applications their preferences for the cadres they
wished to join. After the examination, the list of successful car.di-
dates in order of merit is published. and, subject to certain reser-
vations for Scheduled castes and tribes and Backward classes, the
successful candidates have preferential claim in the order of merit
to appointment in the cadres for which they indicated their pre-
ference. The latter part of r. 9(2), however, reserves to the Gov-
ernment the right of appointing to any particular cadre any candi-
date whom it considers more suitable for such cadre.
In the present case an open1 competitive examination \Vas beld
for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Commissioners in the
Mysore Administrative Service and of Assistant Controllers in the
Mysore State Accounts Service. Though both are Class I cadres
the post of Assistar.t Commissioner had better prospects.
The!'<!
were 20 vacancies in the posts of Assistant Commissioners. The res-
pondent indicated his preference for the post of Assistant Com-
missioner. Though his rank was fourth, the Public Service Com-
mission recommended that he and some others should be appointed
as Assistant Controllers while those who ranked after the res-
pondent were recommended for appointment as Assistant Commis-
sioners. The State Government accepted the recommendation.
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court
asking for an order directing the State to apooint him as Assistant
Commission.er. The High Court held that the Government had under
the latter part of r. 9(2) the power to decide to which post or cadre
the respondent should be appointed, but that the Government should
itself make up its mind without consulting the Public Service Com-
mission, and directed the Government to decide accordfngly.
The State appealed to this Court
Held: The latter part of r. 9(2) was violative of Arts. 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution. and therefore the State ~vernment had
no power to withhold the post of Assistant Commissioner from the
respondent who had a right to be appointed to that post haVing'
regard to his rank in order of merit. The High Court should, there-
fore, have directed the Government to appoint the respondent to the
Post. .[354B-CJ
L.'S5SCI
319
350
SUPREME COURT BEl'ORTB
[1968) l S.C.11.
The Rules are silent on the question as to how the Government
A
was to find out the suitability of a candidate for a particular cadre
nor do the Rules give the Public Service Commission the power
to test the suitability of a candidate for a particular cadre or to
recommend that lie is more suitable for it. Further there is no
provision in the Rules under which the Government' can test the
suitability of a candidate for any cadre after the result of the
examination is published. Therefore, the latter part of r. 9(2) gives
B
the Government ar• arbitrary power of ignoring the just claims of
successful candidates for recruitment to offices under the State, and
thus, subverts the basic objectives of ensuring equality of opportu-
nity in the matter of employment by open competition. [352H;
353B-C; 354A-B]
GVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 283 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 13, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1440 of 1962.
B. R. L. Iyengar, R. N. Sachtlrey for R. H. Dhebur, for the
appellant.
'l'he respondent appeared in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J.
This appeal raises a question of the validity of
the latter part of r.
9(2) of the Mysore Recruitment of
Gazetted
Probationers'
Rules,
1959
framed
by
Governor
oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.