M. KAMALAMMA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Certiorari cancelling the order dated 5th June 1956 passed by the State of Mysore directing that the third respondent should be treated as senior to the petitioner in the cadre of lecturers in the University of Mysore.

(2.) THE facts that led to the presentation of this writ Petition by the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner M. Kamalamma took her Master in Science degree of the University of Mysore in 1937. She was appointed as a temporary III Grade lecturer in Zoology by the then Vice -Chancellor of the University of Mysore on a salary of Rs. 75/ - per mensem on 11th of August 1939. The third respondent T. P. Vanajakshi who is also a Master of Science having passed the Examination in 1934 was applying for a post of a lecturer in Zoology in the University of Mysore from the date she passed her M.Sc. Examination.

(3.) IT is clear from the above narration of facts that the Government of Mysore by an order dated 5th June 1950 re -fixed the relative ranks of the petitioner and the third respondent in the cadre of lecturers in the University of Mysore. By the aforesaid order the petitioner, who was senior to the third respondent in the cadre of lecturers has now become her junior. It was strenuously urged by Sri Nathamuni Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order dated 5th June 1956 passed by the Government of Mysore by which the third respondent has become senior to the petitioner is opposed to the principles of natural justice since the same was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself or explain the circumstances in her favour and that it virtually amounted to reduction of her rank and offended Art. 3112 of the Constitution of India. It was further urged that the impugned order offends Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as persons similarly situated are not treated equally and that the case of the third respondent was sought to be differentiated on standards prohibited by the Constitution of India, namely, on grounds of caste, namely, that she belongs to the Backward Class. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to cite any decision before us in support of his contention that the reduction in rank consequent upon the re -fixation of the seniority of a civil servant per se amounts to reduction in rank and attracts Art. 3112 of the Constitution of India. But he strongly relied upon some observations of the learned Chief Justice of India in Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India UOI, AIR 1958 SC 36 , in support of his contention that if the order entails loss of seniority of a civil servant in his substantive rank or the stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion it amounts to punishment and attracts Art. 3112 of the Constitution. I have carefully read the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice but do not find anything to support this view. The observations relied upon by the learned Advocate are as follows :