Judgement

AYYANGAR, J. : The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in this appeal which has been filed pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Rajasthan under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and it challenges the correctness of a judgment of the High Court allowing a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent.

2. The respondent, Ram Saran, was appointed a Constable in 1947 in the Ajmer district police force. Two years thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable and was confirmed in that post. On June 29, 1956 he was appointed to officiate as a Sub-Inspector. At that stage the States Reorganisation Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enacted which became operative from November 1, 1956 - referred to in the Act as the appointed date - and by virtue of its provisions the former State of Ajmer was merged in the State of Rajasthan and under its terms again the respondent was absorbed in the Police Service of the Rajasthan State. To give effect to this provision a formal order appointing the respondent as an officiating Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan State police force was also passed dated the same day.

3. Subsequent thereto, on April 6, 1957 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range ordered the reversion of the respondent to his substantive post of Head constable in the District Police Force. The respondent was dissatisfied with this order and his complaint was that it was not one passed in the normal course of posting since there were, on that date, officiating Sub Inspectors in the State police force who were junior to him but who continued to hold their officiating posts and that such a reversion to his substantive post was in effect an order of supersession. He made representation to the authorities to set the matter right. When he did not succeed in his efforts, he filed, on July 22, 1959, a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of reversion dated April 6, 1957 and for a direction to restore him to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector according to his seniority. The State as well as the Inspector-General of Police and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police were impleaded as parties to the petition and the learned Judges of the High Court allowed it principally on the ground that this order of reversion was in violation of the provisions of S. 115 of the Act. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this appeal before us.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised it is necessary briefly to advert to the statutory provisions on which the judgment of the High Court in the main rests. Those material in this context are Ss. 115 to 117 of the Act occurring in Part X headed Provisions as to Services :

"115. (1). Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the Union under the administrative control of the Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Commissioner in any of the existing States of Ajmer. Bhopal. Coorg, Kutch and Vindhya Pradesh, or is serving in connection with the affairs of any of the existing States of Mysore, Punjab, Patiala and East Punjab States Union and Saurashtra shall, as from that day, be deemed to have been allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the successor State to that existing State.

(2) ..................

(3) ..................

(4) ......................

5. The Central Government may by order establish one or more Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to -

(a) the division and integration of the services among the new States and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras; and

(b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this section and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons.

6. The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any person to whom the provisions of S. 114 apply