A.N.RAY, D.G.PALEKAR, P.N.BHAGWATI, V.R.KRISHNA IYER, Y.V.CHANDRACHUD
Ramchandra Shankar. Deodhap – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J. :- The short question that arises for determination in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution lies in a very narrow compass, but in order to arrive at its proper determination it is necessary to state the facts giving rise to the petition in some detail.
2. Prior to the reorganisation of the States, which took place on 1st November, 1955 by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the petitioners were confirmed Tehsildars in the quondam State of Hyderabad which was then a Part B State. The Rules of recruitment to the posts of Tehsildar which prevailed in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad provided that 1/3rd of the number of posts shall be filled by promotion from the lower ranks while the remaining 2/3rd shall be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of the result of competitive examination. The petitioners belonged to the latter category of directly recruited Tehsildars. The next higher cadre above that of Tehsildars was the cadre of the Deputy Collectors and recruitment to that cadre was governed by a notification issued by the Rajpramukh of Hyderabad State on the 15th September, 1955. This notification provided that all the
distinguished : Shivdeo Siagh v. State of Punjab
distinguished : Ram Sharan v. Deputy Inspector General of Police
Mervyn Coutindo v. Collector of Customs Bombay
relied on : B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore
Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan
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.