Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

878
and another v. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 80. Learned
counsel submitted that the Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s case inter alia on the ground that if the
condition about age in the advertisement is now relaxed, that will operate unjustly against many other
persons who have not applied in view of the stipulation about age in the advertisement. In the case of
Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another, according to the petitioner, a different view was taken.
We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner.
9. In the case of Ashok alias Somanna Gowda, interview marks were kept at 33.3% of the total
marks and the Apex Court held that if 15% marks were kept for interview, the petitioners would have
qualified. In view of such finding, the Apex Court granted relief to the petitioners. As the counsel for
the State objected on the ground that if that criteria is followed relief can be granted to others, the
Apex Court repelled that contention holding that nobody else applied and the selections were held in 1987.
10. That decision does not apply. In Ashok Gouda (supra) the Apex Court found that allotting
33.3% for interview is not legally sustainable. But here the stipulation about age is not bad in law.
Apart from that, by the fact of relief being granted to the petitioner in Ashok Gowda (supra) no one
can be said to have been prevented from applying pursuant to the advertisement. But here if eligibility
condition of age is relaxed now, many persons who could have applied, if the relaxation was available
to them will be excluded. Therefore, the ratio in the said case cannot be applied in the present
situation.
Orissa PSC
11. The other case, which was cited by the learned counsel,, was also on a different factual basis.
That decision was rendered in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. P.Chandra Mouleesware
Reddy and others reported in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 330. In that case A.P.P.S.C. advertised
19 posts for recruitment and in response there to the parties applied and appeared in the written test
and were interviewed. At that stage the Government directed the Commission to fill up only 10 posts.
Later on the State Government in its affidavit admitted that its direction to the Commission about 10
vacancies instead of 19 was based on a mistake of fact. In that situation the Tribunal held that the
State having admitted its mistake the applicants were entitled to the relief prayed for. But in the instant
case the facts situation are different. Here, no mistake has been admitted by the State and in fact there
is no mistake. Here advertisement has been made on one basis and the parties have applied on the
basis of such advertisement and interview has been held and selection was completed. Now the