Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed two civil appeals filed by the State of Mysore against a common judgment of the Mysore High Court which had allowed two writ petitions challenging three State Government notifications dated 30 August 1967 amending the Mysore State Accounts Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1959 retrospectively. The dispute concerned promotional opportunities of government servants who had been integrated into a single Accounts Service but were subsequently divided into two classes by the impugned notifications. The two respondents before the Supreme Court, who were original petitioners, had joined the Accounts service in the Comptroller's office of the former Mysore State as first and second division clerks. After abolition of the Comptroller's office, they worked as Accounts Clerks under the Chief Engineer, PWD, and were absorbed into the Divisional Accounts Cadre created on 31 October 1953. In April 1959, the PWD Reorganisation Committee recommended transfer of the PWD Accounts Branch to the newly set up Controller of State Accounts. On 15 May 1959, the two formerly separate units—the PWD Accounts Unit and the Local Fund Audit Unit—came under common administrative control. On 26 May 1959, the Mysore State Accounts Services Cadre and Recruitment Rules were issued, fixing combined cadre strengths. The High Court found that these rules effected a complete integration of the two units, with identical qualifications, work, recruiting authorities, and standards. On 30 August 1967, the State Government issued three notifications amending the 1959 Rules with retrospective effect. These amendments created a disparity in promotional opportunities between officers from the formerly separate units, reducing promotional posts available to the PWD Accounts Unit. The original petitioners challenged these notifications as violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the notifications and the promotions made under them, and directed the State to consider the petitioners' cases for promotion under the 1959 Rules. Before the Supreme Court, the State raised two main contentions: first, that the respondents were never promoted or appointed under the 1959 Rules and hence could not complain; second, that the retrospective amendments were legal and rationally connected to the object of the differentiation. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the first contention as it was not raised before the High Court and involved factual investigation. On the second, the Court held that the rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 could not be used to validate unconstitutional discrimination in promotional chances. It noted that inequality of promotional opportunity is not per se unconstitutional, but must be justified on rational criteria co-related to the object of selecting the most competent. When members of one class are not even considered for promotion, Articles 14 and 16(1) are violated. The Court relied on State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya, State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh and K. M. Bakshi v. Union of India, and distinguished Ram Lal Wadhwa v. State of Haryana and S. G. Jatsinghani v. Union of India. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order that the respondents' cases be considered for promotion under the 1959 Rules in accordance with merit-cum-seniority.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality in Public Employment - Articles 14 and 16(1) - Promotion Discrimination - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16(1) - The 1959 Rules integrated two separate Accounts units into one service, but the 1967 notifications retrospectively created disparity in promotional opportunities between the two wings. The High Court correctly quashed the notifications as violative of the guarantee of equality; Supreme Court upheld this decision. Held that artificial division of an integrated service based on past history without reference to merit or seniority amounts to unconstitutional discrimination (Paras 577-580). B) Administrative Law - Rule-making Power under Article 309 - Scope and Limits - Constitution of India, Article 309 - The proviso to Article 309 empowers the State to make rules for recruitment and conditions of service, but this power cannot be used to validate unconstitutional discrimination in promotional chances of government servants who belong to the same category. Held that amendments made to disintegrate an integrated service and justify illegal promotions are ultra vires (Paras 579). C) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Classification - Rational Nexus Test - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16(1) - Inequality of opportunity for promotion is not unconstitutional per se, but must be justified on rational criteria co-related to the object of selection of the most competent. Held that Articles 14 and 16(1) are violated when members of one class are not even considered for promotion while another class is considered (Paras 580). D) Practice and Procedure - Supreme Court - New Plea - Not raising a new point before High Court - The Supreme Court refused to entertain the State's contention that the respondents were never promoted or appointed under the 1959 Rules because this point was not urged before the High Court and involved investigation of questions of fact. Held that it is a well-recognised practice not to allow new points for the first time in the Supreme Court (Paras 577-578).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government notifications amending the Mysore State Accounts Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1959 retrospectively by dividing a single integrated service into two classes for promotional chances violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution; whether the rule-making power under Article 309 proviso could validate such discriminatory classification.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirmed the High Court's common judgment quashing the three notifications dated 30-08-1967 and the promotions of Respondents 3 to 8, and directed the State of Mysore to consider the cases of the original petitioners along with Respondents 3 to 8 for promotion under the Mysore State Accounts Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1959, in accordance with the merit-cum-seniority rule.
Law Points
- Rule-making power under proviso to Article 309 cannot be used to validate unconstitutional discrimination in promotional chances
- inequality of promotional opportunity not per se unconstitutional but must be justified on rational criteria co-related to object
- Articles 14 and 16(1) of Constitution violated when members of one class are not even considered for promotion
- seniority-cum-merit rule provides just and reasonable criteria for promotion
- new points involving question of fact not allowed for first time in Supreme Court
