B VENKATAMANA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
LAWS(SC)-1951-3-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 09,1951

B.VENKATAMANA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

C P DAMODARAN NAYAR AND P S MENON VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1973-12-12] [REFERRED]
DESU RAYUDU VS. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1965-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
MALLELA VENKATA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2000-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
PULUSAM KRISHNA MURTHY VS. T SUJAN KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
B ARCHANA REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
P S MENON VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1969-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1992-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
SIDA NITINKUMAR LAXMANBHAI DR VS. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-1990-5-4] [REFERRED]
BISHNU CHARAN MOHANTY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-1993-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAO RAJARAM SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
JAISINGHANI S G VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1964-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHNANDAN THAKUR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1955-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. Kesava Iyengar VS. State Mysore and others [LAWS(KAR)-1955-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
CLARENCE PAIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2001-2-221] [REFERRED]
Y VASUDEVARAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1960-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PANDURANG PAGARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
K P A NALLAMOHAMED VS. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-393] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DAVINDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA T.K. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-515] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH BABU VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1957-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
V HARIHARAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1967-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
V.B. KANTHI VS. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-1993-12-35] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appln. under Art. 32, Const. Ind.. complaining of the infringement of the petnr's fundamental right to employment in the State service of resp. 1.
(2.)By a notfn. dated 16-12-1949, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 20-12-1949, the Madras Public Services Commission invited applns. for 83 posts of District Munsifs in the Madras Subordinate Civil Judicial Service. It was notified that out of the 83 posts to be filled by direct recruitment, 12 were to go to persons already in the service holding certain classes of employment in the Madras Civil Judicial Dept. and that the remaining 71 posts would be filled up from among the Official Receivers, Assistant Public Prosecutors and practising members of the Bar. It was further notified that the selection of the candidates would be made from various castes, religions and communities in pursuance of the rules prescribed in what are popularly described as Communal G. Os., namely, for Harijans 19, Muslims 6, Christians 6, Backward Hindus 10, Non-Brahmin Hindus 32 and Brahmins 11, Different and unequal age limits for candidates of the above mentioned different classes were fixed and no age limit was fixed for Harijan and Backward Hindus.
(3.)The petnr. is a Graduate having secured a first class degree in Matthematics. He also passed the B.L. Degree Examination in the second class. He has been practising as an Advocate in Nellore for over seven years. Admittedly, therefore, he possesses the requisite qualifications for being selected as a District Munsif. Indeed, it is admitted that the marks secured by him would entitle him to be selected if the provisions in the Communal G. O. were disregarded. In April and May, 1950, the Madras Public Services Commission interviewed the candidates. It is claimed by the petnr. that he did well in the viva voce examination held by the Public Services Commission in which one of the Judges of the Madras H. C. was also present as a representative of the H. C. Out of the 83 posts,12 were selected from the Madras Judicial Dept. The Madras Public Services Commission in its notfn. in the Supplement to Part I-B to the Fort St. Gorge Gazette dated 6-6-1950 published the list of selected candidates under each community: Harijan 1, Muslims 7, Christians 4, Backward Hindus 13, Non-Brahmin Hindus 32 and Brahmins 4. The present Petn. was filed on 21-10-1950 praying for an order declaring that the rule of the communal rotation, in pursuance of which the selection to the posts of District Munsifs was made in the Madras Subordinate Civil Judicial Service, was repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution and therefore, void, for directing the Madras Public Services Commission to cancel the selections already made, prohibiting the State of Madras from filling up the posts from out of the candidates selected in pursuance of the notfn. dated 16-12-1949 and for drawing the disposal of the petnr's. appln. for the said post after taking it on the file on its merits and without applying the rule of communal rotation.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.