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

1966 Supreme(SC) 309

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM, G.K.MITTER, K.N.WANCHOO
K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty, Muni Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Mysore – Respondent


Judgment

MITTER, J. : These are two appeals from a common judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore covering a number of Writ Petitions filed in that Court on special leave granted by this Court.

2. The appellants are two out of a total number of 43 persons who filed separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Mysore High Court on October, l, 1964. The main prayer in all the petitions was that a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the State of Mysore to promote each petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Engineers from the date on which the petitioner was placed in charge of a sub-division with all consequential benefits. To put in short, the demand of the petitioners was that they should all receive benefits which others promoted before and after them had received. According to the petitions, some of these persons had received such benefits before the petitioners and some had been accorded similar advantages although they were promoted as Assistant Engineers long after the petitioners, but the State of Mysore had, without any reason, declined to give similar benefits to the petitioners.

3. The facts as they emerge from the affidavits and the documents
















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top