Back
1964 Supreme(All) 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. U. Beg, J.
VIDYA SAGAR - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE - Respondents
Writ Petn. 79 Of 1963
Decided On : 01/14/1964
H.D.Srivastava, Uma Shanker Srivastava, UMESH CHANDRA
Reversion of an officiating incumbent to his substantive post does not amount to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and selection for promotion based on merit does not violate Articles 16 and 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - REVERSION OF AN OFFICIATING INCUMBENT TO HIS SUBSTANTIVE POST DOES NOT AMOUNT TO REDUCTION IN RANK - ARTICLE 16 - EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT MEAN GETTING THE PARTICULAR POST - ARTICLE 14 - QUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATE FROM LAYING DOWN QUALIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS TO ENABLE IT TO GET THE BEST SERVICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an officiating Naib Tahsildar, was reverted to his substantive post of Supervisor Kanungo. He challenged the order of reversion and the subsequent orders promoting other Supervisor Kanungos to the post of Naib Tahsildar, arguing that they violated Articles 311, 16, and 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reversion of the petitioner did not amount to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, as it was a simple order of reversion under the rules and not a penal order passed by way of punishment. The court also held that the selection of other Supervisor Kanungos for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar was not discriminatory, as the selection was made strictly on merits and the petitioner's case was duly considered.
Issues: 1. Whether the reversion of the petitioner from the post of officiating Naib Tahsildar to his substantive post of Supervisor Kanungo amounted to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the selection of other Supervisor Kanungos for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar was discriminatory and violative of Articles 16 and 14 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that reversion of an officiating incumbent to his substantive post does not amount to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as long as it is ordered by the State in exercise of its power of reverting him under the contract, express or implied, or under the rules of service. 2. The court held that the selection of other Supervisor Kanungos for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar was not discriminatory, as the selection was made strictly on merits and the petitioner's case was duly considered. The court observed that equal opportunity contemplated by Article 16 (1) does not mean getting the particular post for which a number of persons may have been considered.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
( 1 ) THE Petitioner in this Writ Petition Vidya Sagar was confirmed on the post of Supervisor kanungo from the 1st of April, 1952. On the 24th of October, 1958, he was appointed as an officiating Naib Tahsildar. On the 12th of December, 1962, the Board of Revenue which is the opposite party in this writ petition issused a list of 81 officiating Naib Tahsildars who were reverted to their substantive post of Supervisor Kanungos, and, in their place, appointed 82 supervisor Kaungos who were declared eligible for appointment as officiating Naib Tahsildars. The petitioner was one of the persons who was reverted to the substantive post of Supervisor kanumgo, and was not put in the list of those Supervisor Kanungos who were declared eligible for appointment as officiating Naib Tahsidars. A copy of the said order is Annexure 1. On the 13th of December, 1962, the opposite party Issued another order giving a list of 54 supervisor Kanungos who were declared as permanent Naib Tahsildars. The petitioners name was absent from this list also. A copy of this order is filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the Issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2, and the issue of a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction directing the opposite party to act in accordance with Rules 17 (1) and (2)and 31 (i) (iii) and other rules of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib Tahsildars)Rules framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh In exercise of the powers conferred on him under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lists were not prepared in accordance with Rule 17 (1) (a) and (b) of the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Naib tahsildars) Rules as they existed on the 12th and 13th of December, 1962, the dates of the issue of orders contained in Annexures 1 and 2. Under Rule 17 (1) (a) as it existed on the said dates only a permanent Supervisor Kanungo who had put in not less than seven years service- could be promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar. It is a fact that the lists prepared according to Annexures 1 and, 2 did include the names of certain persons who did not fulfill the above condition. The case of the opposite party, however is that the said rule was amended1 on the 8th of January, 1963. Ac-carding to the amended rule in order to entitle one to hold the post of Naib Tahsildar, it was enough if he had put in not less than seven years service either as a Supervisor Kanungo or "in an equivalent or higher post in a subordinate or officiating capacity on the first day of january of the year in which the selection is made. " this rule was given retrospective effect, from the 15th of March, 1962. All the persons whose names are contained in Annexures 1 and 2 were either Supervisor Kanungos or had held an equivalent or higher post in a substantive or officiating capacity on the first day of January, 1962, the year in which the selection was made. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that the rule could not be thus amended with retrospective effect Reliance on behalf of the opposite party is, however, placed on the majority view in the. decision of the Full! Bench case of Ram Autar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 All U 31 : (AIR 1962 All 328 ). According to the view taken by Srivastava and Dwivedi, JJ. in the; said Full bench case, a retrospective amendment of rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of india can be made. In view of this decision the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard must fail.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then argued that two of the selected candidates viz, those whose names appeared at Nos. 23 and 76 had not been confirmed as Supervisors Kanungos on the 1st January, 1952, and therefore, even the amended rule was not complied with. This fac
