A N NAGANOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, though several reliefs were asked for, at the time of the hearing, Sri H.B. Datar, the petitioner's learned counsel pressed for only one relief, namely, that this Court may be pleased to quash the order of the State Government in No. FD 474 CSE 63, dated 6th December 1963 for the reason that it was made on the basis of an invalid order of the Central Government.

(2.) The impugned notification reads thus: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_49_TLKAR0_1965Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) These are the relevant facts: The petitioner was appointed as a Sales Tax Inspector in the Sales Tax Department of the erstwhile State of Bombay on 24-4-1946. On 2-3-1953, he was promoted as a Sales Tax Officer, Grade III. On 1-11-1956, at the time of the Reorganisation of the States, he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. The provisional Inter-State Seniority List of the officers of the Commercial Tax Department in the new State of Mysore was made on 25th May 1957 and published in the Official Gazette on 6-6-1957. Under the list, the Sales tax Officers, Class II of the former Hyderabad State and the Sales Tax Officers, Grade III of the former Bombay State were equated with the Assistant Sales Tax officers of the former State of Mysore. The petitioner and others objected to the equation made. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, committee consisting of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes and representatives of each of the integrated units of the new State of Mysore was constituted for examining the representations received and to prepare an appropriate provisional inter-State Seniority list. It is alleged by the petitioner that the committee recommended that Sales Tax Officers, Grade II & Grade III of the former Bom. State & Class I and Class II Sales Tax Officers of the former Hyderabad State should be equated with the Sales Tax Officers of the Old Mysore State. He further alleges that in pursuance of the decision of that committee, the State Government published a revised inter-State Seniority list in 1960. A copy of that list has not been produced. The existence of such a list is denied by the respondents. On 3-5-1960 the State published what is called a final list of seniority. The validity of that list was challenged in Jaleel v. State of Mysore, 1961-39 Mys LJ 425: (AIR 1961 Mys 210). This Court quashed his list in question on the ground that the State Government had no competence to prepare an inter-State Seniority List. It further held that such a list can only be prepared, in view of section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, by the Central Government. It also opined therein that the power conferred on the Central Government by section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act is an original power. At the same time, this Court held that it is competent for the State Government for the purpose of carrying on the administration of the State to prepare a provisional inter-State Seniority List and to make promotions on that basis of that list. But such a list is subject to the final list prepared by the Central Government under the aforementioned section 115(5). Thereafter, one K. Marappa Reddy, one of the respondents in this petition was promoted on 19-11-1962. According to the petitioner, the said Marappa Reddy is junior to him and has been given a rank lower to him in the 1960 list, which he calls as the Civil list. On the basis of those allegations the petitioner came up to this Court in Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1962 seeing a writ of mandamus requiring the State Government to consider his case for promotion in preference to that of Marappa Reddy. That petition was allowed and this Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in preference to that of Marappa Reddy's case. The said decision is reported in Nagnoor v. State of Mysore, (1964) 1 Mys LJ 212:(AIR 1964 Mys 229). In obedience to that decision, the petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 6-12-1963 with effect from 19-11-1962. Meanwhile the Central Government purported to finalise the list of the Gazetted Officers in the Commercial Tax Department. The said list was published by the State Government on 26th September 1963. As per that list, the petitioner's rank is 47 and therefore, he was not entitled for promotion. On the basis of that list the Government reverted the petitioner on the same day i.e.6-12-1963 on which it purported to have promoted him. It is this order of reversion that is being challenged in this writ petition.