9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted with the establishment of equivalence of posts or other matters relating to States reorganisation. This seniority list, though it related to the entire State, was, however, prepared district-wise as till then the cadre of these officials was district-wise and not State-wise. It is said that in pursuance of this notification of February 1958 objections were filed but nothing further happened thereafter. It appears that when the seniority list was published in February, 1958 some officials objected that it should be on a state-wise basis and not on a district-wise basis. But this objection was turned down in March, 1958. It is said that this seniority list of 1958 continued in operation till February, 1962 even though it was not finalised as required under the States Reorganisation Act, No. XXXVII of 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and promotions used to be made district-wise in accordance therewith. 2. In October, 1961, however, it is said that Government decided to change the district-wise system for these officials prevalent till then, and substitute therefor a Mate-wise system. This change was made after the Government decided to take out class III posts from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. 5. The petition was opposed on behalf of the State Government. It is strange that the State Government did not file any affidavit in reply. We must say that in a case of this kind we should have expected the State Government to file a proper affidavit in reply that would show how, when and why the district-wise system was given up in favour of the state-wise system with reference to these officials. It seems to us that the main reason why the petition succeeded in the present case was that there was no proper explanation on behalf of the State to show how exactly the system was changed from district wise to state-wise. 6. The High Court allowed the petition mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show why the State Government had changed the district-wise system for a state-wise system. The High Court seems to have been of the view that all that the orders of Government from January 29, 1962 onwards show is that future recruitment was to be on a state-wise system. The High Court therefore thought that that was no reason for scraping the provisional seniority list which had been made as far back as 1958, for, in the words of the High Court, "what the Government did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Orders that all that the Government intended was to constitute a separate state wise machinery for selection of Class III posts for futures recruitment and that there was no decision of Government to create a state wise cadre for Junior and Senior Health Inspectors including all those who were in service before November 1, 1956. It is urged that no order of Government has been produced which expressly says so in terms. It may be accepted that there is no order of Government which expressly says in terms that Junior and Senior Health Inspectors recruited upto date whether before or after November 1, 1956 would be put in one state wise cadre. But when one reads various orders passed by Government from January 29, 1962 onwards one must come to the conclusion that that was what the Government intended after it had decided to take away class III posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission. We have already indicated that the order taking away class III posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission was passed the October 1961 Thereafter the Government had to provide for recruitment of class III posts and it began to do so by the order, of January 29, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such officials in service upto November 1, 1956, had to be prepared on a state wise basis. We would have agreed with the High Court if we had come to the conclusion that Government orders showed that only future recruitment was to be done in a particular manner; but we are satisfied that Government orders from January 29, 1962 onwards show that a state wise cadre of Junior and Senior Health Inspector was being created and it was in that context that the old list of 1958 had to be scrapped as it was based on a district wise system. 9. It is however urged on behalf of the Respondents that it was not open to Government to take into account factors subsequent to November 1, 1956 in the matter of fixing seniority as on that date. On the face of it the argument looks attractive. But if one goes deeper into the matter it is clear that what the Government did after the state wise cadre had been created in 1962 which was necessary even for purposes of fixing seniority of these who had been recruited before 1956 in view of the new cadre thus created. This will be clear from a simple example. Suppose that the district wise seniority list of 1958 had been finalised before 1962. It is not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents that as their chance of promotion have been affected their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service. It is enough in this connection to refer to the State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Dass A.I.R. 1966 SC 1547. 11. Lastly, it is urged on behalf of the Respondents that the action of the Government was mala fide. Now there is no doubt that if the Government changed the district wise system into state wise with the sole object of favouring the old Mysore employees and doing damage to the employees who had come from Bombay or other States on reorganisation of States the action of Government would be mala fide and would be liable to be set aside. 12. But the mere fact that a change in the system from district wise to state wise has affected chances of promotion of the Respondents or others like them is no ground for holding that the Government's section was mala fide. AH that the Respondents said in their petition with respect to mala fide was just this, "that their position had been affected." But there was no definite allegation that this was don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
