1972 (7) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds High Court decision on discriminatory reversion orders

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash reversion orders, finding them based on extraneous reasons and resulting in discrimination ... Reversion - punishment under Article 311(2) - misuse of power - detournement de pouvoir - extraneous or collateral purpose in exercise of administrative power - unjustifiable discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 - power of the Central Government to make provisional and final allotments under Section 115(2) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 - right of representation to an Advisory Committee under Section 115(5)Reversion - punishment under Article 311(2) - Validity of the reversion orders as punitive dismissals attractable under Article 311(2) of the Constitution - HELD THAT: - The Court examined whether the respondents' reversion from officiating Wireless Operators to constables amounted to punishment within Article 311(2). The respondents were officiating in higher posts after passing the 1955 examination and were reverted by orders passed shortly before central allotment to Mysore. The Court accepted that officiating incumbents could be reverted without invoking Article 311 provided the reversion was not punitive. On the material before it the reversion could not be characterised as valid punishment; rather it was effected for reasons extraneous to the lawful scope of the reversion power. Consequently Article 311(2) was not attracted on the facts and the reversion could not be sustained on the ground that it was a valid non-punitive exercise of administrative power. [Paras 2]Reversion did not constitute a lawful punitive action under Article 311(2) and therefore could not be sustained on that ground.Misuse of power - detournement de pouvoir - extraneous or collateral purpose in exercise of administrative power - power of the Central Government to make provisional and final allotments under Section 115(2) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Whether the reversion orders were vitiated as an exercise of power for an extraneous purpose or by misapprehension of the proper scope of power - HELD THAT: - The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Bombay authorities acted on the erroneous assumption that officers belonging to certain districts must necessarily be sent to Mysore and that Bombay officials could determine Mysore's staffing needs. Section 115(2) vested the allotment power in the Central Government and, until such allotment, employees continued to serve the parent State. The record showed no lawful basis empowering Bombay officials to assess Mysore's requirements or to revert incumbents in anticipation of central allotment. The reversion was therefore held to be a use of the reversion power for a collateral, legally extraneous purpose (a detournement de pouvoir), notwithstanding that deliberate benefit to others need not be proved once misuse was established. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Reversion orders were vitiated as an illegitimate exercise of power for an extraneous purpose and therefore invalid.Unjustifiable discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 - Whether the reversion resulted in discrimination contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the High Court's factual findings that vacancies in Bombay existed which were later filled by juniors and less meritorious candidates who obtained appointments while the respondents, though entitled, were reverted and allotted to Mysore as constables. The subsequent appointments in Bombay of clearly junior and less meritorious candidates were relevant to determine whether the respondents had been denied opportunities in violation of equal protection and equality of opportunity provisions. The material established that respondents were disadvantaged in favour of juniors and less meritorious persons as a consequence of the reversion, constituting unjustifiable discrimination under Articles 14 and 16. [Paras 8, 9]Reversion resulted in unjustifiable discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 and therefore could not be sustained.Reversion - Appropriate remedial classification of the respondents following quashing of reversion orders - HELD THAT: - The Court noted uncontested material that, notwithstanding formal reversion, the respondents had been performing the duties of Wireless Operators throughout their service in Mysore and that the State of Mysore did not controvert these assertions. The High Court had quashed the reversion orders but left the central allotment intact; on the evidence it was reasonable and just to treat and deem the respondents to have been allocated to Mysore in the capacity of Wireless Operators. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with that remedial conclusion. [Paras 10]Respondents should be treated as Wireless Operators and deemed to have been allocated to Mysore in that capacity; the High Court's remedial order stands.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed. The reversion orders were invalid-being effected for an extraneous purpose and resulting in unjustifiable discrimination-do not amount to lawful punitive action under Article 311(2), and the respondents are to be treated as Wireless Operators allocated to Mysore; the High Court's decision is affirmed with costs. Issues:Appeal against reversion orders, violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, representation to Advisory Committee, misuse of power in reversion orders, discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, working as wireless operators despite reversion.Analysis:The State of Mysore appealed to the Supreme Court against a Division Bench judgment of the Mysore High Court, which allowed three connected Writ petitions challenging reversion orders. The reversion orders were passed just before the respondents were allotted to the State of Mysore under the State Reorganisation Act of 1956. The respondents contended that the reversion orders amounted to punishment in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The High Court found that the reversion was ordered for extraneous reasons and resulted in discrimination against the respondents under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the reversion orders partially due to collateral purposes and discrimination.The High Court held that the reversion orders were based on an erroneous belief that all police officers from certain districts must be sent to Mysore, leading to a misapplication of power. The authorities in Bombay made reversion orders without legal authority to assess the needs of Mysore. It was found that the reversion aimed to create vacancies for less meritorious officers, indicating a misuse of power. The High Court concluded that the reversion was not utilized for its intended purpose, thus constituting an exercise for an extraneous purpose.Furthermore, the High Court determined that the reversion orders resulted in unjustifiable discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents were denied opportunities that less meritorious and junior officers obtained in the State of Bombay. Despite being allotted as constables in Mysore, the respondents continued to work as wireless operators due to their proficiency. The High Court directed that the respondents should be treated as wireless operators, and their allotment to Mysore remained intact.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found no grounds for interference, affirming the quashing of the reversion orders while maintaining the respondents' status as wireless operators in Mysore. The State of Mysore failed to demonstrate any error in the High Court's findings regarding the misuse of power and discrimination in the reversion orders.