TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government had unlawfully delegated its statutory function of integration of services under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 to the State Government. (ii) Whether the final gradation list was vitiated for want of a further opportunity of representation before publication, particularly in relation to category 6.
Issue (i): Whether the Central Government had unlawfully delegated its statutory function of integration of services under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 to the State Government.
Analysis: The integration process involved formulation of principles, preparation of provisional lists by the State Government, consideration of representations, and final approval by the Central Government. The Central Government itself laid down the governing principles, received and decided the representations, and retained effective control over the final outcome. The preparatory work undertaken by the State Government was only ministerial and assistive in nature. Such assistance did not amount to a prohibited delegation of essential statutory functions.
Conclusion: The challenge based on improper delegation failed and was against the respondents.
Issue (ii): Whether the final gradation list was vitiated for want of a further opportunity of representation before publication, particularly in relation to category 6.
Analysis: The basis on which the inter se seniority of the Mahakoshal officers and the assumed dates in the final list were worked out was not sufficiently disclosed in the preliminary process. In the special circumstances, one opportunity against the provisional list was not enough to satisfy fair procedure for the particular alterations introduced before final publication. The affected officers were entitled to represent on the two specific matters before the list was finalised for category 6.
Conclusion: The final gradation list was invalid only to the extent of category 6 and the respondents succeeded on this issue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the finding of improper delegation was set aside, but the notification was quashed only insofar as category 6 was concerned, with a fresh opportunity of representation directed before finalisation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory authority retains ultimate control and approves the final decision, preparatory assistance by the State does not amount to unlawful delegation; however, if material changes affecting seniority are introduced before final finalisation without a fair opportunity of representation on those specific changes, the resulting decision is invalid to that extent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
