1966 (11) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Promotion and Seniority of Surveyors to Assistant Engineers
2. Alleged Discrimination Against the Petitioners
3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution
4. Laches (Delay) in Filing the Petitions
5. Competence of the New State of Mysore Post-Reorganisation

Detailed Analysis:

1. Promotion and Seniority of Surveyors to Assistant Engineers:
The appellants, part of a batch of 63 surveyors, sought promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers with retrospective effect from the dates they were placed in charge of sub-divisions. The State of Mysore had previously promoted batches of surveyors to Assistant Engineers with retrospective benefits, but denied similar benefits to the appellants. The Chief Engineer recommended their promotion with retrospective effect, but the State Government did not act on this recommendation. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the same benefits as other batches promoted before and after them.

2. Alleged Discrimination Against the Petitioners:
The appellants claimed discrimination, arguing that other batches of surveyors received promotions with retrospective effect, while they were denied similar benefits. The Solicitor-General contended that the State of Mysore had shown special concessions to other batches and there was no reason why such concessions should have been withheld from the appellants. The State countered that the promotions of the appellants could not be backdated as it would disrupt the seniority list and affect other officers not before the court.

3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The appellants invoked Article 14, arguing that they were treated unequally compared to other surveyors promoted to Assistant Engineers. The court examined whether any rule or principle had been unevenly applied. The State argued that there was no rule or principle that had been violated and that the concessions given to other batches were ad hoc and not a matter of right. The court agreed with the State, concluding that the appellants were not entitled to any particular concession and that the State had not transgressed any service rule.

4. Laches (Delay) in Filing the Petitions:
The State argued that the appellants were guilty of laches, having waited from 1950 to 1964 to file their petitions. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the appellants should have applied within a reasonable time after the impugned order of May 17, 1950. The court held that the appellants' delay in seeking redress weakened their case.

5. Competence of the New State of Mysore Post-Reorganisation:
The State argued that post-Reorganisation, the new State of Mysore was not competent to reopen issues settled before November 1, 1956. The court accepted this argument, stating that the new State could not interfere with the state of affairs prior to the Reorganisation. The court also noted that any changes to the seniority list would affect officers not before the court, which was beyond its powers.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not entitled to any particular indulgence or concession. The court emphasized that the promotions should be effective from the date of notification and not retrospectively. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.