UNION OF INDIA Vs. A GOPALAKRISHNA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil appeal is one of the survivals of service litigation arising from the States Reorganisation Act.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was the writ petitioner before the High Court who challenged an integrated seniority list in the Transport Department of the then Mysore Government. He belonged to the then Madras Government and was allotted to the then Mysore State and claimed that he should have been equated with motor vehicles inspections instead of being assigned a rank as an assistant motor vehicles inspector. The provisional list prepared by the State Government, because it hurt him, was challenged by him by a represent action to the Central Government which, after due consideration, rejected his claim, Thus he enjoyed an opportunity to be heard by the Central Government against the provisional seniority list prepared by the Mysore Government. Afterwards, the Mysore Government (now Karnataka Government) finalised the inter-State seniority list Aggrieved by the assignment of rank as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the final list, the first respondent filed the writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court, under the impression that its earlier decision in G. M. Shankariah v. Union of India, (1965) 2 Mys LJ 40 governed the case decided that the seniority list prepared by the Central Government was no more than a proposal in the context of which the petitioner was entitled to make a fresh representation which was to be heard and decided before the Central Government made a final list. On this footing a direction was given by the court, although it linked up its order with the final fate of Shankariah's case (supra) in the Supreme Court.

(3.) Actually Shankariah's case (supra) did arrive in the Supreme Court and was decided on the footing that the inter-State seniority list which was before the court was a provisional one and that in that view an opportunity to be heard against the equation which was the basis of the list was to be afforded to the petitioner (1st respondent herein).