1964 (9) TMI 93 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution against State of Mysore and Mysore Public Service Commission regarding appointments made to certain services.
- Change in selection process from competitive examination to viva voce test.
- Discrepancies in marks obtained by selected and rejected candidates.
- Allegations of nepotism and compromise in selection process.
- Validity of appointments made by the Government of Mysore.

Analysis:
The judgment involves fifty-five writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging appointments made by the State of Mysore and the Mysore Public Service Commission. Initially, a competitive examination was announced, but it was later changed to selection based solely on viva voce test results, leading to dissatisfaction among unsuccessful candidates. The Court examined the marks obtained by selected candidates and found discrepancies, with some selected candidates scoring lower than rejected candidates.

The Court scrutinized the selection process and found that sixteen candidates were selected through a compromise before the High Court, including three who had not even attended the viva voce test. The Court concluded that the selection of these candidates could not be sustained due to the lack of merit-based selection. Additionally, the appointments of twenty-four candidates recommended by the Government of Mysore were questioned, as the selection did not appear to be based on merit, raising concerns about the impartiality of the Public Service Commission.

Despite allegations of nepotism, the Court focused on the marks obtained by candidates and concluded that the selection process was flawed. The Court emphasized the importance of merit-based appointments to maintain public trust in the integrity of institutions. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the appointments of the twenty-four candidates recommended by the Government and the sixteen candidates selected through compromise before the High Court.

In a bid to uphold equality and the rule of law, the Court acknowledged the inconvenience caused by overturning appointments but emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and transparent selection processes. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding meritocracy in public appointments to foster confidence in public institutions. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petitions to the extent indicated, with considerations for the principles of equality and justice.