SHALIGRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has asked for quashing of the order dated 31st October 1961 (Annexure XI to the petition) passed by the Government of India and communicated to the petitioner by Shri S.B.Khare, Under Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is at present working as Principal, Government Post Graduate Basic Training College, Raipur, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Before the reorganisation of the States by the States Reorganisation Act on 1-11-1956 he was employed as Principal of the Teachers' Training College (L. T.) at Dewas which is stated to be the only institution of this kind in the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. The State of Madhya Bharat merged in the new State of Madhya Pradesh from 1-11-1956 under the States Reorganisation Act. It is alleged that the State of Madhya Pradesh published a provisional integration list (Annexure I to the petition) setting out the principles formulated for being observed, as far as may be, in the integration of Government servants allotted for service to the new State of Madhya Pradesh. In the said notification under the heading "Teaching" the Principal Training College from Mahakoshal is shown at the top followed by three officers in category 1. In the said list Professor of Training College and Professor incharge Senior section from Mahakoshal are shown above the Principal L. T. College, Madhya Bharat, that is the petitioner. The principles set forth in the said notification for equation of posts in the scheme of re-integration inter alia were as under :-

(2.) In the light of the above facts the petitioner contends that by virtue of section 116 of the States Reorganisation Act he was entitled to hold the same post in the new State of Madhya Pradesh and treating him in a lower catergory was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the provisions of sections 115 and 116 of the States Reorganisation Act. It is further contended that the respondent had no right to revoke the earlier decision, in any case, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India it has inter alia been stated that :-

(3.) Mr. Hardy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has attacked the impugned order principally on two grounds. He says that (1) the authorities while passing the impugned order dated 31st October, 1961 (Annexure XI) were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and the same could not be passed unless the petitioner had been given an opportunity of being heard ; (2) having regard to the provisions of sections 1 15 and 116 of the States Reorganisation Act the petitioner was entitled to- an equitable treatment which necessarily meant that no one could be wrongly placed. above the petitioner in re-integrating the services; and lastly that there had been a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Shan- kar, the leaned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits' that -