STATE OF MYSORE Vs. H SRINIVASMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances leading to this appeal, directed against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore, are as follows:

(2.) The respondent herein entered the service of the Princely State of Mysore in 1935 as Instructor of Tailoring in the Department of Public Instructions. In 1949 Three Occupational Institutes (Polytechnics) at Hassan, Devangere and Chintamani were started in the State. The respondent was sent on deputation to serve in the Polytechnic at Devangere as Instructor in Tailoring and he joined the new post on November 28, 1949. One Shri K. Narayanaswamy Chetty who was also an Instructor in Tailoring in the Department of Public Instruction was also deputed to the Occupational Institute at Hassan and joined duty there on December 1, 1949. This K. N. Chetty was far junior to the respondent in service. Special Officer-in-Charge of the three Occupational Institutes considered the names of the respondent and K. N. Chetty for absorption as Instructors in Tailoring and recommended for their absorption with effect from the respective dates of their joining duty, after deputation, in the Institutes. Accordingly, K. N. Chetty was absorbed with effect from December 1, 1949 but no order was passed in the case of the respondent, despite repeated representations made by the latter.

(3.) In 1953, the then State of Mysore set up the Department of Technical Education and the Polytechnic at Devangere became part of that Department. The respondent continued to serve on deputation in that Department. In 1955, for no fault to the respondent, the Government passed orders reverting him to his parent Department. On June 11, 1956, the respondent was again posted on deputation as Instructor in Tailoring in the Polytechnic at Bellary "on provisional basis". The intervening period between his reversion and reposting to the Polytechnic was treated as leave. On the reorganisation of States with effect from November 1, 1956, his services were allotted to the new State of Mysore. The respondent continued to make representation to the effect, that like other employees who were taken on deputation from other Departments, he should also be absorbed in the Department of Technical Education with effect from November 28, 1949, which was the date on which he initially came on deputation. His specific grievance was that in any case, he could not be discriminated against and treated differently from K. N. Chetty who was junior to him in the parent Department and came on deputation to the Polytechnic establishment, subsequently. The State Government referred the respondent's case to the Public Service Commission who examined it, and by a communication, dated February 2, 1960, made these recommendations in favour of the respondent.