C. CHANNABASAVAIAH versus STATE OF MYSORE & OTHERS

C. CHANNABASAVAIAH versus STATE OF MYSORE & OTHERS

Appointments of 16 candidates made on compromise in High Court and 24 candidates appointed on government recommendation, who obtained lower marks than rejected candidates, are invalid due to unequal treatment and discrimination, violating Articles 14, 15, and 16; selection is to be made strictly on merit.

Parties
Petitioner: C. Channa Basa Vaiah; Respondent: State of Mysore; Respondent: Mysore Public Service Commission; Petitioner Advocate: R. Gopalakrishnan; Petitioner Advocate: B. Parthasarathi; Petitioner Advocate: J. B. Dadachanji; Petitioner Advocate: O. C. Mathur; Petitioner Advocate: Ravinder Narain; Petitioner Advocate: Naunit Lal; Respondent Advocate: S. M. Hegde; Respondent Advocate: V. D. Mahajan; Respondent Advocate: A. G. Ratnaparkhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 September 1964
Procedural Posture
Writ Petitions Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions partly allowed; appointments quashed.
Legal Topics
Equality of Opportunity, Discrimination in Public Employment, Validity of Appointments, Recruitment Procedures
Constitutional Law Public Employment Equality of Opportunity Discrimination in Public Employment Validity of Appointments Recruitment Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. Channa Basa Vaiah

Petitioner

State of Mysore

Respondent

Mysore Public Service Commission

Respondent

R. Gopalakrishnan

Petitioner Advocate

B. Parthasarathi

Petitioner Advocate

J. B. Dadachanji

Petitioner Advocate

O. C. Mathur

Petitioner Advocate

Ravinder Narain

Petitioner Advocate

Naunit Lal

Petitioner Advocate

S. M. Hegde

Respondent Advocate

V. D. Mahajan

Respondent Advocate

A. G. Ratnaparkhi

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Writ Petitions Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointments made by compromise or Government recommendation violating Articles 14, 15, and 16 are valid when candidates appointed have obtained lower marks than rejected candidates
  2. 2 Whether the Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957, r. 4, sub-r. (3) foot-note justifies such appointments

Ratio Decidendi

Appointments of 16 candidates made on compromise in High Court and 24 candidates appointed on government recommendation, who obtained lower marks than rejected candidates, are invalid due to unequal treatment and discrimination, violating Articles 14, 15, and 16; selection is to be made strictly on merit.

Court Disposition

Petitions partly allowed; appointments quashed.

Orders

  • Appointments of 24 candidates appointed on government recommendation (Annexure 'C') and 16 candidates appointed as a result of compromise (Annexure 'D') are quashed.
  • Further selection to be made strictly on merit; candidates not called for viva voce test to be interviewed and marks given.