PANDURANGA K Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common question of law arise in these petitions. But for convenience sake we shall first take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 1653 of 1963. The results of the other two writ petitions depend on the result of this writ petition.

(2.) Writ petition No. 1653 of 1963. - The petitioner herein were serving in the Revenue Department in the State of Madras till 1 November 1956. They were allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date of the State reorganization. Even before the State reorganization they had been temporarily appointed as deputy tahsildars, but by the date of the States reorganization they had been reverted to a lower rank for want of posts of deputy tahsildars. Petitioner 1 was again appointed as deputy tahsildar on 12 December 1957, petitioner 2 and 3 on 1 April 1958 and petitioner 4 on 25 July, 1958. Ever since then, they have continuously acted as deputy tahsildars till the filing of this petition. Respondents 7 and 8, prior to the reorganization of States, were also serving in the Revenue Department of the Madras states. They were also allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date States reorganization. At no time in their parent State they had served as deputy tahsildars. Respondent 7 was appointed as deputy tahsildar for first time on 11 April 1961 and respondent 8 on 19 May 1961. Respondents 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were allotted to the new State of Mysore from other areas. At present respondents 4 to 10 have been promoted as tahsildars by the order of respondent 2 whereas till the date of the institution of this writ petition, the petitioners continued to be deputy tahsildars. During the tendency of this writ petition, petitioners 2 and 3 have been promoted as tahsildars.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that they are seniors to respondents 4 to 10 and therefore their case should have been considered for promotion before respondents 4 to 10 were promoted, as the promotions in question were made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Their further contention is that the promotions of respondents 4 to 10 were made by respondent 2-Divisional Commissioner, Mysore - who, according to them, was not empowered by law to make those promotions and as such those promotions are invalid in law. According to them, promotions to tahsildars' posts can only be made by Government; the Government having not made those promotions it must be held that they were not validly promoted.