N H MANJUNATHA Vs. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner who was an applicant for selection and appoitment to the post of English Typist on the establishment of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) has questioned the legality of the selection and appointment of the second respondent to the post to the exclusion of the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the case are as follows ; The Commission had invited applications for the two posts of English Typists on its establishment. The petitioner being possessed of the minimum qualification prescribed for the post submitted his application to the Commission within the due date. The recruitment to the posts is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment to the post of stenographers, Junior Stenographers, and Typists) Rules 1977. The said Rules prescribe only the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post. As regards the procedure for recruitment Rule 3 of the aid Rules provides that direct recruitment under the said Rules shall be made in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the selection Rules) "Rule 4 of the Selection Rules reads as follows :
"Recruitment under these rules shall be made on the basis of the marks secured at the interview by the selecting authority." Rule 6(1) of the Selection Rules provides that the selecting authority shall interview the candidates eligible to be called for interview under rule 5 and award marks on the basis of their performance in the interview. The maximum marks for interview is one hundred. The object of such interview is to assess the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the cadre or post applied for by them and their calibre including intellectual and social traits of personality. Rule 7 of the Selection Rules requires the selecting authority to prepare list of selected candidates on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination and the marks secured at the interview.
(3.) The petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe. One of the two vacancies advertised had been reserved for Scheduled Tribe. After the petitioner attended the interview, the second respondent was selected as against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and the petitioner was not selected. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Commission in selecting the second respondent in preference to the petitioner and therefore he has presented this writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.