UNION OF INDIA Vs. G M SHANKARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from Writ Petitions Nos. 2186 of 1963 and 121 of 1964 filed in the High court of Mysore under Article -226 of the Constitution, and are founded on a certificate obtained from that High court. There are other similar appeals pending in this court arising from similar eight writ petitions involving identical questions but for the moment we are not concerned with them as they are not before us.

(2.) The petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions were prior to the reorganisation of State, working as Assistant Conservators of forests in the erstwhile State of Mysore. As a result of the reorganisation which involved inclusion in the erstwhile State of Mysore certain parts of the States of Bombay, Hyderabad. Coorg and Madras, the problem arose as to the integration of several employees in forest services till then serving in those States under different designations, performing different functions and having different conditions of services. For instance, in the erstwhile state of Mysore, the Forest Department considered of the following gazetted officers, namely, the Chief Conservators of Forests. Conservation or of forests, Senior Conservators, Assistant Conservators, and Sub-Assistant's, covservators. In the then State of Madras the Forest Department had the Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservators and Assistant conservators In Coorg. the service considered of the Chief Conservator and Deputy Conservators. In the then State of Hyderabad and Bombay, it considered of the Chief Conservator, Conservators, Deputy Conservators and Assistant Conservators The problem, which on reorganisation of the state of Mysore, as with other States, arose was how and on what principles the various officers still then serving in the different States, but who were allotted under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, to the State of mysore, were to be integrated in the Forest Department of the new State of Mysore.

(3.) It appears that the government of India delegated its power under s. 115 of the Act to the Mysore State. Accordingly, the State government by its order dated 26/03/1957, prepared a provisional inter state seniority list. In doing so, the State government equated the posts of Assistant conservators of Forests serving till then in the erstwhile States of mysore and Madras with the Deputy Conservators in the then Hyderabad and Bombay States and fixed the inter se seniority on the principle of continuous service in the cadre of question. To this objections were raised by some of the officers. A sub committee with the assistance of one of the officers deputed by the central government for that purpose went into this objections and on the advice of that committee a fresh seniority list Was prepared which was published in 1960. This list was prepared on a formula recommended by the said committee, viz; that assistant Conservators with six or more years of service should be equated with Deputy Conservators inducted from the erstwhile States of Hyderabad and Bombay. This list raised a fresh crop of objections The government of India thereupon constituted an advisory committee as provided by s. 115 (5) of the Act and on the recommendations of that committee it gave the decision impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions equating Senior assistant Conservators from the erstwhile Mysore State with the Deputy conservators Hyderabad and Bombay States and Assistant Conservators and Sub-Assistant Conservators from the erstwhile Mysore State with the assistant Conservators from the erstwhile Bombay and Hyderabad States the writ petitions from which these appeals type challenged the validity and correctness of the said decision on various grounds, namely, that in arriving at the said decision into the government of India acted in breach of and beyond the crop of the Act and also in breach of the principles of natural justice and of fairness and equity. One of the contentions urged by the petitioners in those writ petitions was that the function of integration was entrusted by the Act to the government of India, that it was a quasi judicial function that the government was, therefore, bound to act in discharging it in conformity with the principles of natural justice, that it failed to do so inasmuch as it took into account representations made to it by the officers from the erstwhile Hyderabad and Bombay States without giving an opportunity to the petitioners and others placed in similar situation to reply to those representations. In answer the government of India took the stand that the function entrusted to it by the Act was purely administrative, that therefore, it was not justiciable and that in any event no question of violation of the principles of natural justice could arise It was also said that the government's decision was based on the advice Of the said advisory committee consisting of the then Chairman of the public service commission, a retired High court Judge and the retired Law secretary to the government of India.