A.N.RAY, D.G.PALEKAR, Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, P.N.BHAGWATI, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
E. P. ROYAPPA – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent
Judgment
Ray, C. J. (for himself and D. G. Palekar, J.}-The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asks for a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the Order dated June 27, 1972. The petitioner further asks for direction to re-post the petitioner to the post of Chief Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondents are the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
2. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the Cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu. On August 2, 1968 the petitioner was confirmed in the Selection Grade of the Indian Administrative Service with effect from May 22, 1961. There were 8 Selection Grade posts in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was No. 4 in that list. The petitioner in the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969 was posted to act as Fifth Member, Board of Revenue; Fourth Member, Board of Revenue; Third Member, Board of Revenue; Second Member, Board of Revenue. On April 5, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as Second Member, Board of Revenue. On July 11, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as Additional Chie
Based on the provided list of case laws, here is the analysis of their judicial treatment:
None identified.
**Category: Duplicate/Multiple Entries**
* **Arun Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. - 2026 0 Supreme(All) 61: Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu**
* **Gauri Kansal (Minor) Through Father Anil Kansal vs Govt. Of Nct delhi - 2026 0 Supreme(Del) 135: Royappa v. State of T.N.**
**Explanation:** Both entries refer to the same landmark judgment (*E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu*, AIR 1974 SC 555). These entries represent the same legal authority and do not indicate a pattern of being overruled or reversed. In the context of established Indian constitutional law, this case is considered "Followed" and has served as a foundational precedent for the "arbitrariness" doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no evidence in the provided list suggesting a change in its status as good law.
None. The entries are identified as duplicates of the same precedent, which remains valid and widely cited law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.