K PANDURANGA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law arise in these petitions. But for convenience sake we shall first take up for consideration W.P. No. 1653/63, The results of the other two writ petitions depend on the result of this writ petition.

(2.) W.P. No. 1653 of 1963: The petitioners herein were serving in the Revenue Department in the State of Madras till 1-11-1956. They were allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date of the States Reorganisation. Even before the States Re-organisation they had been temporarily appointed as Deputy Tahsildars, but by the date of the States Re-organisation, they had been reverted to a lower rank for want of posts of Deputy Tahsildars. The Ist petitioner was again appointed as Deputy Tahsildar on 12-12-1957, the 2nd and 3rd petitioner on 1-4-58 and the 4th petitioner on 25-7-58. Ever since then, they have continuously acted as Deputy Tahsildars till the date of filing of this petition. The 7th and 8th respondents, prior to the Re-organisation of States, were also serving in the Revenue Department of the Madras State. They were also allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date of the States Re-organisation. At no time in their parent State they had served as Deputy Tahsildars. The 7th respondent was appointed as Deputy Tahsildar for the first time on 11-4-1961 and the 8th respondent on 19-5-1961. Respondents 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were allotted to the New State of Mysore from other areas. At present by respondents 4 to 10 have been promoted as Tahsildars by the order of the 2nd respondent whereas till the date of the institution of this writ petition, the petitioners continued to be Deputy Tahsildars. During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner 2 and 3 have been promoted as Tahsildars.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner 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 the 2nd respondent, 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.