Judgement

BEG, J.:- The State of Mysore has appealed by Special leave to this Court against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court allowing three Writ Petitions raising common questions of law and fact. There are thus three connected appeals before us against a common judgment which will be dealt with by us in a single judgment.

2. Each of the three petitioners before the High Court, now Respondents before us, had challenged the validity of reversion orders passed against them on 25-10-1956 by the Superintendent of Police (Wireless), in the then State of Bombay, a few days before the Central Government, by an order dated 31st October, 1956, made under Section 115, sub-section (2) of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) allotted the respondent to the newly formed State of Mysore. The respondent had been officiating, before their reversion, as Wireless Operators on a pay scale of Rs.80-5-100, after successfully passing an examination held in 1955 by the Police Wireless Training Centre at which the respondent Y. L. Mirajkar secured the 16th place, the respondent R. R. Kulkarni the 20th place, and respondent V. S. Bhandari the 30th place. They were reverted, by the impugned orders, to the posts of Police Constables on pay scales of Rupees 35-1/2-40. It is obvious that the reversion to the lower posts with lesser pay meant a serious loss to each of the 3 contesting respondents. The respondents had, therefore, challenged the reversion orders, passed practically on the eve of their allotment to the State of Mysore, on the ground, inter alia, that these orders amounted to punishment in violation of the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constituton. As the respondents were only Officiating Wireless Operators they could be reverted, without infringing Article 311, provided their reversion did not amount to punishment. As no case of punishment, in the eye of law, could be made out no violation of Article 311 could be put forward.

3. The petitioners had a right of representation under Section 115 sub-section (5) to an Advisory Committee, which they did avail themselves of, but their representations to that Committee were rejected on the ground that they could not complain of reversion orders which were passed before the order allotting them to the new State of Mysore. Thus, the petitioners grievances against the reversion orders had not even been considered by the Advisory Committee which seems to have acted on the erroneous assumption that the reversion orders were quite disconnected with the Reorganisation of States, one of the consequences of which was that services of persons serving in one State were transferred to another under the provisions of Section 115 sub-s. (2) of the Act.

4. The Mysore High Court had quashed the reversion orders passed before the allotment orders of the Central Government, partly because the reversion was held to have been ordered for a collateral or extraneous purpose and partly because it had resulted in a discrimination against the respondents struck by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even where Article 311 is inapplicable, a reversion order may be vitiated on these grounds. We, therefore, proceed to consider the merits of this double pronged attack on reversion orders.

5. The High Court had found that the reversion orders against the respondents were passed under the erroneous belief entertained by the authorites concerned in the former State of Bombay that all police officers belonging to the constabulary of the 4 KANNAD Districts (i.e. Belgaum, Dharwar, Bijapur and Kanara), which were transferred from the former State of Bombay to the new State of Mysore, must necessarily be sent to the new State of Mysore and could not serve in the new State of Bombay. It seems that the authorities concerned came to the conclusion, for reasons which are not very clear, that, unless the petitioners were reverted, the number of Wireless Operators would exc