1969 (4) TMI 125 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of integration principles for judicial officers.
2. Fair and equitable treatment in integration.
3. Counting of service under Rule 11(2) of the Madras State Judicial Service Rules.
4. Counting of training period for seniority.
5. Creation of separate cadre for District Magistrates and Sub Divisional Magistrates.
6. Application of K.L.M. principle.
7. Validity of appointments made before the constitution of Public Service Commission.
8. Counting of war service for seniority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Integration Principles for Judicial Officers:
The petitioners challenged the integration principles adopted for merging them with their counterparts from Travancore-Cochin. They argued that respondents 4 to 21, who were integrated with them, were not judicial officers duly appointed under the Constitution. The court held that there was substantial compliance with Article 234 of the Constitution in the appointments of respondents 4 to 21, and thus, the integration was valid.

2. Fair and Equitable Treatment in Integration:
The petitioners contended that the integration process was neither fair nor equitable as required by Section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The court found that the Central Government is the final authority in ensuring fair and equitable treatment and that the integration principles adopted were in line with the Act's requirements.

3. Counting of Service under Rule 11(2) of the Madras State Judicial Service Rules:
The petitioners argued that their service under Rule 11(2) should be counted for seniority. The Central Government ruled that non-regularised service under Rule 11(2) should not be counted for inter-State seniority. The court upheld this decision, stating that such service did not count for probation or seniority even in the Madras State.

4. Counting of Training Period for Seniority:
The petitioners contended that the training period should be counted for seniority. The Central Government decided that the training period should not be considered as part of the service. The court agreed with this decision, rejecting the petitioners' contention.

5. Creation of Separate Cadre for District Magistrates and Sub Divisional Magistrates:
The petitioners objected to the creation of a separate cadre for District Magistrates and Sub Divisional Magistrates of executive origin. The court found that this decision was based on the advice of the High Court and was necessary due to the unique circumstances in Travancore-Cochin. The court upheld the creation of a separate cadre, noting that it was a temporary arrangement.

6. Application of K.L.M. Principle:
The petitioners argued that the K.L.M. principle, which ensured that seniority in the parent service was maintained in the integrated service, was unfair. The court held that this principle was necessary to maintain the inter se seniority of officers from the Madras State and was in line with the settled principles of integration.

7. Validity of Appointments Made Before the Constitution of Public Service Commission:
The petitioners argued that appointments made before the constitution of the Public Service Commission were invalid. The court held that there was substantial compliance with Article 234 of the Constitution and that the appointments were valid.

8. Counting of War Service for Seniority:
The petitioner in O.P. No. 2600 of 1966 argued that his war service should be counted for seniority. The court found that war service was not considered part of judicial service by the Madras State and thus could not be counted for integration purposes.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the integration principles and the decisions of the Central Government. The court found that the integration process was fair, equitable, and in compliance with the relevant constitutional provisions and the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.