1. Integration of services under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 — Preparation of gradation lists for engineers — Challenge to the validity of the final gradation list. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
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
G.S.CHATTERJEE, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.V.Gupta
A statutory authority does not illegally delegate its power if it retains ultimate control and approval over decisions based on preparatory work done by a delegate. Additionally, natural justice requires further opportunities for representation if final administrative decisions introduce new, prejudicial criteria.
Headnote:(A) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Sections 115, 116 and 117 - Constitution of India - Articles 162 and 309 - Integration of services - Delegation of statutory power - Principle of "delegatus non potest delegare" - If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work and take initial decisions but retains the power to approve or disapprove the decision, and maintains a substantial degree of control, there is no improper delegation of essential statutory functions. (Para 10)
(B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right of representation - While one opportunity for making a representation against a preliminary list is generally sufficient, the application of the doctrine of natural justice depends on the nature of the jurisdiction, the character of the rights affected, and the specific circumstances of the case. Where the final list is based on principles or data not previously disclosed or provided for representation, a further opportunity must be granted to the affected parties. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Following the reorganisation of states, the integration of services in a public works department was required. The Central Government established general principles for determining the equation of posts and relative seniority. The State Government, acting under the direction of the Central Government, prepared provisional and final gradation lists. The respondents challenged the final list, alleging that the Central Government had illegally delegated its exclusive statutory power of integration to the State Government and that they were denied a fair opportunity to represent their cases regarding the final seniority rankings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Central Government did not improperly delegate its functions because it laid down the principles, considered the representations, and gave final sanction to the lists. However, the court held that the respondents were entitled to a further opportunity to make representations regarding specific inter se seniority rankings and the "assumed dates" used in the final list, as these were not clearly set out in the preliminary stages.
Issues: Whether the preparation of gradation lists by the State Government constituted an illegal delegation of the Central Government's statutory powers under the Act, and whether the respondents were entitled to a second opportunity for representation before the final gradation list was published.
Ratio Decidendi: The maxim "delegatus non potest delegare" does not apply when the administrative authority retains general control and the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of power, using the delegate only for preparatory work and data collection. Regarding natural justice, the court ruled that the right to be heard is not a rigid formula; if the final decision is based on material or principles that the affected party had no opportunity to contradict, a further opportunity for representation is mandatory.
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent that the High Court's order is modified; the final gradation list is quashed only in respect of the affected category, and the Central Government is directed to provide an opportunity for representation.
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. (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Central Government improperly delegated its statutory power of integration to the State Government — Whether failure to provide a second opportunity for representation violates natural justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Preparatory work by State Government under Central Government's control is not improper delegation — Natural justice requires representation opportunities when material changes affect rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Administrative authorities may use delegates for preparatory work if they retain substantial control; natural justice requirements depend on the nature of the right affected. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal partially allowed — High Court order modified — Final gradation list upheld except for Category 6, which requires fresh representations and finalization. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does the use of a subordinate authority for preparatory work constitute improper delegation of statutory power?
No, if the statutory authority retains general control and the power to approve or disapprove the decision, the work is considered preparatory and not a delegation of essential statutory functions. (Para 10 )
7. When does the maxim delegatus non potest delegare apply to administrative functions?
The maxim applies to the delegation of discretion entrusted by statute. It does not apply when an authority empowers a delegate for preparatory work while retaining ultimate responsibility and substantial control. (Para 10 )
8. Is a second opportunity for representation required if the basis of a final administrative list differs from the provisional one?
Yes, the doctrine of natural justice requires an opportunity to represent when the application of principles or new factors affects the rights of the persons concerned, depending on the nature of the jurisdiction and rights. (Para 11 )
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
