1973 (11) TMI 84 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds rules on seniority, deems proviso unconstitutional, declares promotion procedure and resolution invalid

RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAR Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAR Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 1974 AIR 259, 1974 (2) SCR 216, 1974 (1) SCC 317 Issues Involved:1. Determination of seniority of Mamlatdars/Tehsildars.2. Validity of the Rules of 30th July, 1959 under the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.3. Constitutionality of the procedure for promotions to the posts of Deputy Collector.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Re. Ground A: Determination of Seniority of Mamlatdars/TehsildarsThe petitioners argued that their seniority should be determined according to the Government Resolution dated 21st November, 1941, rather than the Government Resolution dated 29th July, 1963. However, the court found this argument difficult to comprehend, noting that the inter se seniority of Tehsildars and Mamlatdars allocated from various states to the reorganised State of Bombay as on 1st November, 1956, would be governed by Rules 7, 8, and 9 of the Rules of 1957. Therefore, neither the Government Resolution dated 21st November, 1941, nor the Government Resolution dated 29th July, 1963, would apply. Consequently, Prayer II of the petition was rejected.Re. Ground B: Validity of the Rules of 30th July, 1959The petitioners contended that the Rules of 30th July, 1959, which limited promotions to 50% of the vacancies and made them on a divisional basis, varied their conditions of service to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government, as required under the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The court, however, found that the reduction in chances of promotion did not constitute a variation in conditions of service. Citing the decision in State of Mysore v. G. B Purohit, the court held that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service. Hence, the Rules of 30th July, 1959, were not invalid for non-compliance with the proviso to Section 115(7). Regarding the second proviso to Rule 1 of these Rules, the court agreed with the Bombay High Court's declaration of its invalidity, as it discriminated between directly recruited Mamlatdars and promotee Mamlatdars, violating Article 16 of the Constitution.Re. Ground C: Constitutionality of the Procedure for PromotionsThe court examined whether the cadre of Mamlatdars in the reorganised State of Bombay was a State cadre or a divisional cadre. It was found that while the cadre of Mamlatdars in the former State of Hyderabad was a State cadre, the cadre in the former State of Bombay was a divisional cadre. The State Government, by a resolution dated 1st November, 1956, decided that the cadre of Mamlatdars would be divisional. The court noted that the Rules of 19th November, 1959, provided legislative recognition for divisional cadres of Mamlatdars.The court then scrutinized the procedure for promotions to the State cadre of Deputy Collectors, finding it violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. The procedure involved promotions on a divisional basis, which denied equal opportunity to Mamlatdars from different divisions. The court emphasized that promotions to a State cadre should be made on a statewide basis to ensure equal opportunity.The court rejected the respondents' reliance on the decision in Ram Saran v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, distinguishing it on the grounds that in Ram Saran's case, promotions were made within a range for a range cadre, whereas in the present case, promotions to a State cadre were made on a divisional basis.Conclusion:The court held that the second proviso to Rule 1 of the Rules of 30th July, 1959, was void as it violated Article 16 of the Constitution. The procedure for promotions to the cadre of Deputy Collectors followed by the State Government was declared invalid for denying equality of opportunity. The Government Resolution dated 7th April, 1961, was quashed. The State Government was directed to readjust promotions and confirmations in light of the principles laid down in the judgment, with retrospective effect but without arrears of pay and allowances for the period prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioners were awarded costs.