Skip to content


Rajasekharappa (N.) Vs. Government of Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 545 of 1966
Judge
Reported inILR1968KAR95; (1968)IILLJ680Kant; (1967)2MysLJ523
ActsConstitution of India - Article 309; Mysore General Service (Printing, Stationery and Publications Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1960
AppellantRajasekharappa (N.)
RespondentGovernment of Mysore and ors.
Excerpt:
.....was that for every appointment in the department of printing, success in the four examinations to which that communication refers is equivalent to the acquisition of a diploma in printing of recognized institute......such as examinations in 'composing higher, proofreading higher, printing higher and machine work higher examinations. these examinations, we are told, were conducted by the madras technical board and the mysore commercial board. 3. the argument maintained by sri thilak hegde for the petitioner is that these examinations are equivalent to a diploma in printing of a recognized institute within the meaning of that expression occurring in the governor's rule, and in support of this postulate our attention was asked to a letter addressed by the secretary to government in the department of education to the secretary of the public service commission of the former state of mysore on 16 april, 1952, and that letter reads : 'subject - tests prescribed for technical appointments in the department.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Somnath Ayyar, J.

1. The Public Service Commission published a notification on 25 August, 1965 in the official gazette bearing the date 9 September, 1965 inviting applications for 4 posts of overseers and 5 posts of foremen in the Government Press, Bangalore. By rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution on 1 December, 1960 called the Mysore General Service (Printing, Stationery and Publications Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1960, the qualification for the posts of an overseer and also for the post of a foreman was prescribed. In respect of 50 per cent of the posts of overseers which had to be filled up by direct recruitment under those rules, the qualification prescribed by the Governor which appears against the post of an overseer in Col. (3) is a diploma in printing of a 'recognized institute.' The rule also stated that the person appointed would be on probation for two years. In respect of 33-1/3 per cent posts of foremen which under the rules had to be filled by direct recruitment, the qualification prescribed by the Governor was the same kind of diploma, namely, a diploma in printing of a recognized institute. In addition, the person who could be appointed was required to process two years' experience in a printing press.

2. The petitioner is a compositor in the Government Press, and it is undisputed that he does not hold a diploma in printing of a recognized institute as such. But it is not controverted that during the period between the years 1959 and 1962 the petitioner passed certain examinations such as examinations in 'composing higher, proofreading higher, printing higher and machine work higher examinations. These examinations, we are told, were conducted by the Madras Technical Board and the Mysore Commercial Board.

3. The argument maintained by Sri Thilak Hegde for the petitioner is that these examinations are equivalent to a diploma in printing of a recognized institute within the meaning of that expression occurring in the Governor's rule, and in support of this postulate our attention was asked to a letter addressed by the Secretary to Government in the Department of Education to the Secretary of the Public Service Commission of the former State of Mysore on 16 April, 1952, and that letter reads :

'Subject - Tests prescribed for technical appointments in the Department of Director, printing.

With reference to your letter No. 8723/51.52/ PSC, dated 18 January, 1952, on the above subject. I am directed to convey approval to your recommendation to treat

(i) the diploma in printing of Sri Jayachamarajendra Occupational Institute, Bangalore, as equivalent to passing in composing higher, proofreading higher, binding higher and machine work higher examinations, and

(2) the certificate examination in printing of Sri Jayachamarajendra Occupational Institute, Bangalore, as equivalent to higher grade examination in proofreading and lower grade examinations in composing, machine work and binding.'

4. On the basis of this concurrence to the proposal of the Public Service Commission, the argument constructed was that for every appointment in the Department of Printing, success in the four examinations to which that communication refers is equivalent to the acquisition of a diploma in printing of recognized institute.

5. We do not agree. If the rule made by the Governor on 1 December, 1960 says that a person in order to be eligible for appointment to the post of an overseer of a foreman must be the holder of a diploma in printing of a recognized institute, the eligibility for appointment cannot exist unless the person who aspires to become an overseer or a foreman is the holder of that diploma. The Governor did not prescribe an equivalent qualification, but prescribed the diploma as such. The equivalence which emerges from the letter addressed by the Educational Secretary to the Public Service Commission in the year 1952 has relevance only in the context of the test prescribed for technical appointments in the Department of the Director of printing on the former State of Mysore The Governor's rule superseded all other rules on the subject, and the letter of the Education Secretary on which Sri Hegde depends does not even have the status of a rule.

6. After the Governor made his rule, no one who is not the holder of a diploma in printing of a recognized institute can seek an appointment to the post of an overseer or foreman when the appointment is made by the process of direct recruitment. Some antecedent equivalence such as the one deduced for certain purposes through the letter addressed by the Education Secretary to the Public Service Commission in the year 1952 can have no relevance to the question whether the petitioner does or does not possess the qualification which the Governor's rule prescribes.

7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition cannot succeed, and so we dismiss it.

8. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //