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

1967 Supreme(SC) 320

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Union of India and another, Appellant
Versus
P. K. Roy and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 618 of 1966,
D/-9-11-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Niren De, Solicitor-General of India and Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhamad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate for Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Appellants, Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him) for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 6, 10, 12 and 13.

Advocates:
G.S.CHATTERJEE, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.V.Gupta

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • The case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that the preparation of provisional gradation lists and the final list published by the State Government under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, were illegal and ultra vires. (!)
  • The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, created a new State of Madhya Pradesh by merging territories from existing states like Madhya Bharat, Bhopal, and Vindhya Pradesh. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 115 of the Act deals with provisions relating to other services, mandating that the Central Government determine the successor State to which officers shall be finally allotted. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 115(5) empowers the Central Government to establish Advisory Committees to assist in the division and integration of services and ensure fair treatment. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 117 empowers the Central Government to give directions to State Governments regarding the integration of services, which the State Government must comply with. (!) (!)
  • General principles for determining the equation of posts and relative seniority were agreed upon in a meeting of Chief Secretaries, focusing on factors like nature of duties, qualifications, salary, and length of continuous service in the equated grade. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The Central Government constituted a Central Advisory Committee under Section 115(5) to advise on the integration of gazetted cadres. (!)
  • The State Government prepared a provisional gradation list, invited representations, and sent them to the Central Government for consideration. (!)
  • The Central Government directed the State Government to prepare a final common gradation list following specific procedures, including prefixing a preamble and ensuring representations were decided in consultation with the Advisory Committee. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The Central Government issued further directions regarding the basis for determining seniority (continuous service in the equated grade) and specific modifications for officers from certain regions. (!)
  • The High Court quashed the final gradation list, alleging improper delegation of powers by the Central Government and violation of Section 115(5). (!) (!)
  • The Supreme Court held that even if integration power was exclusively with the Central Government, the State Government's role in preparing lists under Central direction and sanction did not amount to an improper delegation of essential functions. (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The Court cited precedents stating that a statutory functionary can obtain material through officials and that the ultimate responsibility remains with the authority, meaning the maxim "delegatus non potest delegare" does not apply if substantial control is retained. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • The Court found that while one opportunity for representation against a preliminary list is usually sufficient, the specific circumstances here required an opportunity for representation regarding two specific points concerning the inter se-seniority list of Mahakoshal officers and the principle of "kicking down" used in the final list. (!)
  • Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the final gradation list dated April 6, 1962, was ultra vires and illegal only to the extent of category 6 (regarding the two specific points), and directed the Central Government to give an opportunity for representation on these matters. (!) (!)

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. :- This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated April 29, 1964 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 371 of l962. By its Judgment the High Court held that the preparation of provisional gradation lists by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the relevant provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the "said Act", was unwarranted in law and the final list published on April 6, 1962 prepared by the State Government under instructions from the Central Government with regard to the integration of officers of the Engineering Department was illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by the grant of a writ

2. The said Act was enacted to provide for the reorganisation of the States of India and for matters connected therewith and came into force with effect from November 1, 1956. By Section 9 (1) of the said Act there was formed a "new State" to be known as the State of Madhya Pradesh comprising the following territories :

"(a) the territories of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh except the districts mentioned in Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 8,

(b) the territories of fee existing State of Madhya Bharat; except Sunel tappa of Bhanpura tahsil of Mandsaur district ;

(c) Sironj sub-division of Kotah district in the existing State of Rajasthan;

(d) the territories of the existing State of Bhopal; and

(e) the territories of the existing State of Vindhya Pradesh."

Respondents 1 to 13 were Assistant Engineers in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The first four of them were appointed as such on probation from October 27, 1956 and the others had been appointed as temporary Engineers. The respondents continued to serve in the new State and new "Buildings, Roads and Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department" was constituted with the officers taken over from the absorbed States and regions. The integration of the services became therefore necessary and a principle had to be evolved for integration of the services and fixing inter se-seniority as several officers had been taken over into the reconstituted branch. Section 115 of the said Act provides as follows :

"115. Provisions relating to other services :

1. Every person who immediately be fore 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. Every person who immediately be fore the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of an existing State part of whose territories is transferred to another State by the provisions of Part II shall, a from that day, provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the principal successor State to that existing State unless he is required by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of any other successor State.

3. As soon as may be after the appoint ed day, the Central Government shall by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (2) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.

4. Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (3) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in that successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Government concerned, and in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Cen






















































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