Gopivallabha Iyengar, J.:— The petitioners in these writ petitions are temporary Government employees appointed by the Excise Commissioner.

2. Under the Notification No. GAD 42 ORR 63, dated 8th October 1963, the Governor of Mysore prescribed the cadre and the number and character of the posts borne in the Mysore State Excise Service. In respect of the recruitment of Excise Inspectors, 50 per cent are to be recruited by direct recruitment. One of the qualifications prescribed is that the applicant should have obtained a degree of University established by law in India or should possess a qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent to such degree. The Mysore Public Service Commission (Second respondent) by a Notification dated 28th May 1969, bearing No. R(1) 457/69-70 PSC., called for applications from the candidates who are qualified for the posts of Excise Inspectors (Junior) in the Excise Deptment, Government of Mysore. The number of vacancies is about 80. All the petitioners are qualified to apply for the advertised posts, as they satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed under the relevant Mysore Excise Department Service Recruitment Rules. In paragraph 11 of the Mysore Public Service Commission Notification, it is stated that recruitment to these posts shall be made by selection and after an interview conducted by the Commission in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions stipuated in the Mysore State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rales, 1967 (hereinafter called the Rules). This Notification is under Rule 4 Clause (2) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules of 1957. The second respondent, viz., the Mysore Public Service Commission, prepared an eligibility list of candidates, from the applicants for the posts of the Excise Inspectors, and have called for interview about 320 candidates. The list of such candidates was prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the applicants in the qualifying examination, viz., the degree examination. The petitioners are not included in the eligibility list, for the reason that they do not come within the list of 320 candidates included in the list so prepared. The second respondent has called for interview only those candidates who are in the list, for purposes of selection as provided under Rule 4(2) of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957. The petitioners are aggrieved by their exclusion from the list resulting in their not being called for the interview. It is further stated that the list of the eligible candidates for the interview was made in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Rules. The petitioners, have therefore, filed these writ petitions praying that Rule 5 of the Rules be struck down as being violative of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, to interview the petitioners for the advertised posts of Excise Inspectors. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that 80 posts of Excise Inspectors are to be filled up. In response to the Notification dated 28th May 1969, there were as many as 5000 applications. It is further stated that all the applications were scrutinised in accordance with the Rules and a list of candidates eligible for interview was prepared. It is mentioned that the percentage of marks of candidates eligible for interview was 49.26 per cent (open competition), 47.66 per cent (Backward Classes) and 44.25 per cent (Scheduled Caste) and above. As the petitioners secured less than the above percentage of marks, they were not entitled to be included in the list of candidates entitled to be interviewed and therefore, they were not called for the interview by the second respondent. It is contended by the respondents that Rule 5 of the Rules is not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents at the outset submitted that the interpretation of and validity of Rule 5 of the Rules have been considered in a decision of this Court in K. Rama Reddy v. Mysore Public Service Commission(1), and, in view of that decision, the petitioners' contention cannot be sustained. There is much force in this contention. In that decision, some of the petitioners sought a direction to the Mysore Public Service Commission to call them for interview and for grant of incidental reliefs. In the said decision (1), the Notification was in respect of the 13 posts of District Educational Officers in the Department of Public Instruction. As in the petitions now before us, the Notification contained a clause that the recruitment to the posts would be made by selection after an interview conducted by the Commission in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Rules. The contention urged was that Rule 5 of the Rules is invalid as Rule 4 prescribes that the recruitment shall be made on the basis of selection after interview by the Commission, and therefore, interviewing is the only test prescribed for selection and interviewing only some of the applicants and failing to call the other for interview is discriminatory and hence unconstitutional. It was further urged that even assuming that Rule 5 of the Rule is supported on the basis of reasonable classification, the classification it makes is, devoid of any nexus with the object of the selection, and therefore, the classification is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. These contentions were negatived by this Court. It is not contended before us that the prescription of a minimum educational qualification for the posts in question is not constitutional. It is not contended that the qualification prescribed is not a reasonable criterion or that there is no nexus between the minimum qualification and the object of the Rules of recruitment. As observed in the decision in State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao(2), the provisions of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. It is also an established proposition that when the number of posts available is much smaller than the number of applicants, the process of selection becomes inevitable. While observing that the entire set of rules should be read together, this Court in Rama Reddy's case has taken the view that though Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes that the recruitment under these rules shall be made on the basis of selection after interview, there is no compulsion under the rules that every applicant was necessarily to be interviewed and that it is open, consistently with Art. 14 of the Constitution, to make a preliminary selection of persons eligible to be called for interview. In fact, it is observed that Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the preliminary selection and the criterion prescribed by the rule is perfectly intelligible and to say that there is no nexus with the object of the recruitment is to ignore the fact that the criterion is directly related to the performance of the candidates at the examination which is prescribed as the minimum qualification for appointment.

4. Sri K. Jagannatha Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that this decision i.e, Rama Reddy's case, requires reconsideration. In support of his submission, he contended that in the above said decision of this Court, the question has not been examined with reference to Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Art. 16(1) of the Constitution reads as under:

“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”

5. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao referred to above bearing on Articles 14, 15 and 16 has laid down that Articles 14, 15 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and are supplementary to each other. In State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao at page 351 also it is observed that Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such……Art. 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection. The nature and scope of Art. 14 has been discussed in detail in the decision in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R Tendolikar(3). There are several propositions enunciated in the said decision with reference to Art. 14. They are relevant in respect of Art. 16(1) also. The relevant proposition is in the following terms:

“It must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds.”

6. The contention of Sri K. Jagannatha Shetty, is that Rule 5 is violative of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution as it deprives the petitioners the opportunity for interview which forms part of the consideration of their case for appointment for the post of Excise Inspectors. The petitioners are entitled to the interview in view of the fact that they hold the minimum qualification prescribed for the posts. Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules are as follows:

“4. Method of Recruitment.—Recruitment under these Rules shall be made on the basis of selection after interview by the Commission, the Advisory or Selection Committee or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be.

5. Eligibility of Candidates for the Interview.—(1) For purposes of selection of candidates for the interview, the Selecting Authority shall prepare a list of candidates on the basis of the percentage or total marks secured in the qualifying examination in order of merit. From among the candidates included in such list, as far as may be such number of candidates as is equal to four times the number of vacancies notified, selected in order of merit, shall be eligible for the interview.

(2) Where posts are reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes and the required number of candidates in terms of sub-rule (1) of this rule belonging to such castes, tribes or other classes are not included in the list prepared under sub-rule (1), then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), such number of candidates belonging to such castes, tribes or classes selected in the order of merits on the basis of the percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examinations, from the list of candidates shall be added to the list of candidates and such candidates shall also be eligible for the interview.

Explanation.—In this rule, qualifying examination means, the minimum educational qualification that is prescribed for holding the post in the rules of recruitment applicable to the cadre or post.

6. Interview.—The Selecting Authority shall interview the eligible candidates selected under Rule 5. 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.”

7. It is further contended that Rule 6 of the Rules prescribes that the object of the 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. It is urged that in view of this provision, elimination of the petitioners from the interview is not warranted and such a method of elimination lacks reasonable nexus with the object in view, viz., recruitment to the post as suitability of the candidate for the post and the intellectual and social traits of his personality can be tested only at an interview. The contention of Sri Jagannatha Shetty is acceptable, if there is no nexus between the minimum qualification prescribed and the objective, viz., the recruitment. If there is such nexus then it cannot be denied that there is nexus between the selection of persons with higher qualifications amongst those who possess the minimum qualification and the recruitment. As observed by this Court in G.K Ajjappa v. State of Mysore(4), a higher academic qualification is generally a dependable index of superior merit, which endows in its turn suitability in many spheres. It may be that in some cases academic distinction is not always an accurate measure of suitability for employment, although generally speaking, it may be observed that it is a safe guide for its estimate. If it is so, it cannot be denied that there is nexus between the provision for qualification of candidates who secured higher marks in the degree examination prescribed as minimum qualification and the objective, viz., the recruitment to the post. Therefore, the contention of Sri Jagannatha Shetty that there is no nexus between the provision for eligibility for the interview and the recruitment to the posts cannot be accepted.

8. The further contention of Sri Jagannatha Shetty that the petitioners have been denied equality of opportunity in relation to their employment requires to be examined. No doubt, the selection to the appointment is by an interview. Eligibility of the candidates for the interview is also one connected with the process of selection. It cannot be contended that the petitioners were denied the right to apply or that their application for the advertised posts have not been considered and therefore they are denied an equality of opportunity. In fact, all the applications have been considered on their merits and a list has been prepared on the basis of the percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination in the order of merit. It is only at the first stage of the scrutiny of the applications for the posts, that the petitioners have been eliminated. As long as the basis of percentage of total marks has a prima facie bearing on the suitability of the candidates, the exclusion of the petitioners from the list of those that are entitled to interview, cannot be attacked as being unreasonable or as denying as opportunity in relation to their employment. It must be borne in mind that the object of the Notification is selection to the posts and the test by interview is part of the process of selection which may be applied only to such of the applicants who are considered eligible to the same. Therefore, the two requirements of Art. 16(4) of the Constitution i.e, the right to make the application for the post and the right to be considered on the merits are complied with.

9. Further, examining the argument from the point of view expressed by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia's case, which has been referred to earlier, it would be impracticable to interview all the 5000 candidates who have applied for the 80 posts which have been advertised. R. 5 of the Rules has been framed keeping in view the problems made manifest by experience and the discrimination made in Rule 5 between those who are eligible for interview and those who are not is based on adequate and reasonable grounds. Instances of this kind are numerous and such an eligibility test becomes a necessity. Therefore, the contentions of Sri K. Jagannatha Shetty impeaching the validity of Rule 5 fail.

10. As we are in full agreement with the view taken by this Court in Rama Reddy's case, for the reasons set out therein and also for the reasons we set out above, we cannot accede to the submission that the said decision requires reconsideration.

11. Sri Murlidhar Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 104/70 advanced a further argument that there is no nexus between Rule 5 of the Rules and the duties of the Excise Inspectors as prescribed in the Excise Act. If obtaining a degree of the University is prescribed as a qualification for the appointment of a person as Excise Inspector, and, since its validity is not challenged, it appears to us that the above contention of Sri Muralidhar Rao has no force. We may, however, observe that Rule 5 can be justified on the additional ground that one who is superior to others with equivalent qualification on account of his better performance in the qualifying examination is more suitable to the post than those who have the same qualification. Therefore, preparing a list of eligible candidates for interview based upon the total marks obtained in the prescribed examination cannot be said to be unreasonable.

12. Sri Muralidhar Rao further submitted that even if Rule 5 is valid, it can apply to candidates who have applied for the posts for the first time and not to those who are already in service. This argument was based on the ground that the petitioners are employed as Excise Inspectors by the Excise Commissioner on a temporary basis. He invited our attention to Rule 14 of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957. It provides that in the case of any temporary post, not included in the cadre of any State Civil Service or to which the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service are not applicable, the method of recruitment and the qualifications for recruitment to such temporary post shall be the same as are applicable to the corresponding permanent posts included in any such cadre or in respect of which the said rules of recruitment are applicable. It is doubtful if the appointments are made under this rule. Granting that this rule applies to the appointment made by the Excise Commissioner, it must he borne in mind that the appointment of the petitioners was only on a temporary basis. The appointments now sought to be made are of a different kind. Further, it is not disputed that in appointing the petitioners, the procedure prescribed in Rule 4 of the General Recruitment Rules was not followed. No adeqate publicity for the recruitment by the appointing authority was given. The appointments appear to have been made on the basis of the list received from the Employment Exchange. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioners was made directly observing the rules applicable for regular recruitment for the posts in question. The appointments were in January, 1968 and the rules came into force on 20-12-1967. It is doubtful, if at the time selections were made by the appointing authority, to appoint petitioners as Excise Inspectors, Rule 5 of the Rules was applied or was applicable. However it makes no difference as the appointment was not made regularly and in conformity with the Mysore State Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957. The orders of their appointment made it clear that their services could be terminated at any time without notice. The fact that they were selected at an earlier stage in different circumstances does not Absolve them from the application of Rule 5 of the Rules at present. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the Rule prescribing eligibility for interview cannot apply to the petitioners. It must be noticed that in the Notification issued on 28th May 1969 by the second respondent, it is definitely stated that the recruitment is subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Mysore State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1967. It appears to us that there is no merit in the contention advanced by Sri Muralidhar Rao appearing for the petitioner in W.P No. 104 of 1970.

13. In W.P 69/1970, it was contended that the petitioner is a Backward Class candidate and the minimum marks for eligibility for interview is 47.66 per cent, while he has secured 48 per cent and hence he is eligible for selection to the interview. If the petitioner's allegation that he is a Backward Class candidate is correct, he must be considered as eligible for the interview. But, in the affidavit filed by the respondents in support of their contention, it is stated that the petitioner does not belong to the Backward Class. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he does not set out the details as to how he can be included amongst the Backward Classes. A general statement is made that he belongs to the Backward Class. On the other hand, from the certificate given by the Tahsildar, which is appended to the petitioner's application for appointment, it is stated that the parent of the candidate is a pensioner. The petitioner's father was a Class III Government Servant. The certificate further indicates that he does not come under any of the qualifications which would include him in the Backward Class. It is not contended that the parent of the candidate was not a Class III Employee. If the parent of the petitioner was a Class III Employee, he would not come within the Backward Classes. Therefore, from the material placed before the second respondent-the Mysore Public Service Commission, there was valid reason for the exclusion of the petitioner from the list of candidates eligible for the interview. As the questions that arose for consideration in the above writ petitions are common, they were heard together. Arguments have been advanced in common by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, except in WP. No. 69/70 relating to the allegation that the petitioner belongs to the Backward Class.

14. For the reasons above mentioned, these writ petitions are dismissed.

15. But, we make no order as to costs.