Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk selected by the Madras Public Service Commission in 1949 and allotted to the Revenue Department in South Kanara District, challenged the variation of his conditions of service after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on April 2, 1956, though the State alleged this was temporary. He was later reverted and again posted as temporary Upper Division Clerk. In August 1957, he was included in the eligibility list at Serial No. 14, which was regularised on December 12, 1957, with effect from October 19, 1957, causing alleged loss of benefit of service and increments. After reorganisation, South Kanara District went to the new Mysore State, and the petitioner was allotted to it. The Government of India issued a memorandum dated May 11, 1957, stating that no protection was appropriate for departmental promotion and certain other service conditions. The Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were subsequently framed. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that these rules were invalid for lack of previous approval of the Central Government under the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and that the Madras Government had reduced him in rank by various orders in violation of Article 311(2) and Article 16. The petitioner argued that the memorandum was not approval but an abdication of Central Government powers, relying on In re Bosworth and Corporation of Gravesend and C. K. Appanna v. State of Mysore. The State responded that the orders were passed by competent authorities after considering merits on each occasion. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'previous approval' in the proviso to Section 115(7) includes a general approval to variation in conditions of service within limits indicated by the Union Government; the Central Government's memorandum amounted to such previous approval, and the rules were validly made. The Court also held that the petitioner failed to establish infringement of Article 16, as it was for competent authorities to judge merits. Consequently, the writ petition failed on both grounds.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Conditions of Service - Previous Approval - States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Section 115(7) proviso - The proviso limits the State's power under Article 309 of the Constitution to vary conditions of service to the disadvantage of allotted employees without previous approval of the Central Government - The expression 'previous approval' includes a general approval to variation in conditions of service within limits indicated by the Union Government, not requiring detailed scrutiny of each rule - Central Government memorandum dated May 11, 1957, which stated that no protection was appropriate for departmental promotion, travelling allowance, discipline, control, classification, appeal, conduct, and probation, constituted such previous approval - Held that Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were validly made (Paras 1-5). B) Constitutional Law - Equality in Public Employment - Article 16 of Constitution of India - The petitioner failed to show how Article 16 was infringed before he was allotted to the new Mysore State - The State asserted that all orders complained against were passed by competent authorities after considering the merits of the petitioner on each occasion - Held that it was for the competent authorities to judge the merits of the petitioner, and infringement of Article 16 was not established (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were made with the previous approval of the Central Government under the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956; Whether the Madras Government, prior to November 1, 1956, by various orders, reduced the petitioner in rank in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Article 16
Final Decision
The Supreme Court rejected both contentions of the petitioner. It held that the expression 'previous approval' in the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 includes a general approval to variation in conditions of service within limits indicated by the Union Government, and that the Central Government's memorandum dated May 11, 1957 amounted to such previous approval; therefore, the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were validly made. The Court also held that the petitioner failed to show infringement of Article 16, as the State had asserted that competent authorities passed the orders after considering merits, and it was for those authorities to judge merits. Accordingly, the writ petition failed.
Law Points
- Previous approval under proviso to Section 115(7) includes general approval to variation of conditions of service within limits indicated by Central Government
- Article 309 gives full power to State to make rules subject to Constitution
- proviso to Section 115(7) limits that power but limitation removable by Central Government
- memorandum from Central Government stating no protection for certain conditions amounts to previous approval
- no infringement of Article 16 when orders passed by competent authorities after considering merits
