SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(SC) 113

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
N. Raghavendra Rao, Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, South Kanara, Mangalore and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 211 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. R. K. Garg, Advocate, (amicus curiae), for Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India, (M/s, B. R. L. Iyyengar and B. B. G. K. Achar, Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, R.K.GARG,

The previous approval of the Central Government under Section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, is not required to be obtained for every minor variation in the conditions of service, but only for substantial changes that may adversely affect the rights of civil servants.

Headnote:

STATES REORGANISATION ACT - SECTION 115 (7) - MYSORE GENERAL SERVICES (REVENUE SUBORDINATE BRANCH) RECRUITMENT RULES, 1959 - VALIDITY - PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - MEANING OF - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - VARIATION TO DISADVANTAGE - PROHIBITION - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged the validity of the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, on the ground that they were not made with the previous approval of the Central Government as required under Section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. He also alleged that the Madras Government had reduced him in rank in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Article 16.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, were validly made as the Central Government had given its previous approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, as indicated in the memorandum dated May 11, 1957. The Court also held that the petitioner had not been able to show how Article 16 was infringed before he was allotted to the new Mysore State.

Issues: 1. Whether the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, were validly made with the previous approval of the Central Government under Section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956? 2. Whether the Madras Government had reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and Article 16?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "previous approval" in the proviso to Section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, includes a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, indicated by the Union Government. 2. The Central Government had given its previous approval to the variation in the conditions of service by issuing a memorandum on May 11, 1957, in which it stated that it would not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline, control classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

Judgment

SIKRI, J :

This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcing the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. Although the petition raises various points, before us only two points have been argued by Mr. Garg, on behalf of the petitioner. We are grateful to Mr. Garg, who has argued as amicus curiae, for the assistance he has given. The two points may be formulated as follows :

(1) That the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, were not made with the previous approval of the Central Government under Section 115 (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, and, therefore do not govern the petitioner is so far as the conditions of service have been varied to his disadvantage;

(2) That the Madras Government had prior to November 1, 1956, by various orders, reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Art, 311 (2) of the Constitution and Art. 16.

2. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed to us, it is necessary to give a few facts. The petitioner was selected by the Madras Public Service Commission as Lower Division Clerk under the Madras Ministerial Service Rules in 1949, and was allotted to the Revenue Department and posted in South Kanara District. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on April 2, 1956. According to the petitioner, he should have been promoted much earlier as he has rendered outstanding and meritorious service. According to the State, the petitioner was considered for inclusion in the eligibility list from 1955 onwards, but was not selected as he was not considered fit. The State admits that he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from April 2, 1956, but alleges that this was on a temporary basis. He was later reverted and then again posted as a temporary Upper Division Clerk. In August, 1957, the petitioner was considered and included in the eligibility list at Serial No. 14. This list was regularised on December 11, 1957, in accordance with Rules 39 (e) and 35 of the Madras State and Subordinate Service Rules, with effect from October 19, 1957. According to the petitioner this resulted in the loss of benefit of service and increments.

3. In the meantime, reorganisation of States took place under the States Reorganisation Act (XXXVII of 1956). South Kanara District, except Kasaragod Taluk, went to the new Mysore State and the petitioner was allotted to it, On May 11, 1957, the Government of India addressed a memorandum (No. S.O. SRDI - I APM 57) to all State Governments, Broadly speaking, the Central Government said that some conditions of service should be protected, e.g., substantive pay of permanent employees, certain type of special pay; leave rules unless the government servant opts for new leave rules, etc. But in respect of departmental promotion it said that "the question whether any protection should be given in respect of rules and conditions applicable to Government servants affected by reorganisation immediately before the date of reorganisation in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline, control, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion was also considered. The Government of India agreed with the view expressed on behalf of the State representatives that it would not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of these conditions." Therefore, it is evident from this memorandum that the Central Government had told the State Government that they might, if they so desire, change service rules as indicated in the memorandum. But Mr. Garg argues that even so this does not amount to previous approval within S. 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act to the making of the Mysore General services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959. What then is the true meaning of the expression "previous approval" in the proviso to S. 115 (7) ? Sub-section (7) of S. 115 provides that ;

7. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect af







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top