http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: B.R. RAMABHADRIAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT ANDHRA PRADESH &ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1981

BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1653            1982 SCR  (1) 159  1981 SCC  (3) 528        1981 SCALE  (3)1103

ACT:      Constitution India  1950, Art.  226-Relief  under-Court whether competent  to take note of changed circumstances and grant smaller relief than claimed in writ petition.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant,  an officer  of  the  Forest  Department challenged the  provisional  integrated  gradation  list  of Forest Officers  of the  former Andhra  and Hyderabad States published under  the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1947,  in his  writ petition,  contending that  (a) the inter-se  seniority   between  the  appellant  and  the  6th respondent, both  of whom  originally belonged to the Andhra Cadre, had  been wrongly fixed by showing the 6th respondent as senior to the appellant whereas the appellant was legally entitled to  seniority over the 6th respondent, and (b) that respondent nos.  3, 4,  5, 7  and 8 officers allotted to the State of  Andhra Pradesh  from the  Telengana region  of the former Hyderabad  State, had been erroneously assigned ranks above the appellant in violation of the principles laid down by the  Government  of  India  for  equation  of  posts  and fixation of inter-se seniority.      During the  pendency of  the writ  petition the Central Government set  right the  appellant’s grievance  concerning his ranking  and seniority  in relation to respondents 3, 4, 5, 7  and 8.  When the writ petition came up for hearing the appellant pressed  only his claim for seniority over the 6th respondent and  as the  contention  was  well  founded,  the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Government of India to modify the gradation list by showing the appellant as senior to the 6th respondent.      In  the  appeal  to  the  Division  Bench  by  the  6th respondent, the  Division Bench took the view that since the prayer contained  in the writ the petition was for the issue of a  writ of mandamus directing respondents nos. 1 and 2 to forbear from  implementing the  provisional  gradation  list published alongwith  the Government  Order dated January 27, 1962 and  as the  appellant had  not pressed  the prayer for quashing of the list in so far as it related to the officers of Telengana  region viz.  respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the writ petition  should have  been  dismissed  on  that  short

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

ground and  the question  relating to the inter-se seniority between the  appellant and  the 6th  respondent ought not to have been  decided. The  Division  Bench  allowed  the  writ appeal, set  aside the  order passed by the single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.      Allowing the appeal to this Court, 160 ^      HELD: In  an action  where a  party has  prayed  for  a larger relief  it is  always open  to the Court to grant him any smaller relief that he may be found to be entitled to in law and  thereby render  substantial justice.  The Court can take note  of changed  circumstances and  suitably mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to mete out justice. As far as possible the anxiety and endeavour of the Court  should be  to remedy  an in  justice when  it  is brought  to  its  notice  rather  than  deny  relief  to  an aggrieved party  on purely  technical and  narrow procedural grounds. [162 G-163 A]      In the  instant case  the writ  petition contained  the prayer for  the quashing  of the gradation list in so far as it related  to the  inter-se ranking of the appellant vis-a- vis respondents  nos. 3  to 8  and the  appellant  had  also sought  the   issuance  of  a  writ  of  mandamus  directing respondents nos.  1 and  2 to  forbear from  implementing or acting upon  the said  gradation  list.  Subsequent  to  the institution of  the writ petition the Central Government had refixed the  ranks of  respondents nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 and placed them  below  the  appellant  thereby  redressing  the grievance of  the appellant in so far as it pertained to the ranking of  the  said  respondents.  It,  therefore,  became unnecessary for the appellant to pursue his claim for relief with  respect   to  the   ranks  assigned   to  those   five respondents. It  was  under  those  circumstances  that  the appellant submitted  before the  single Judge at the time of final hearing  of the writ petition that he was pressing the writ petition  only in so far as it related to his claim for seniority over  the 6th respondent. This will not operate to preclude  him  from  seeking  a  lesser  relief  namely  the quashing of  the list  only in  so far as it pertains to the fixation of  the inter-se  seniority between himself and the 6th respondent. [162 B-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 1973.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  judgment and  order dated the  14th October,  1971 of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High Court in Writ Appeal No. 691 of 1970.      B. Parthasarthi for the Appellant.      P.N. Poddar for Respondent No. 2.      S. Markakandeya for Respondent No. 6.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BALAKRISHNA ERADI,  J. This appeal preferred by special leave is  against the  judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh  High Court  setting aside  the decision of a learned single  judge of  that Court  and dismissing  a writ petition filed by the present appellant.      The appellant,  who was  working as  an officer  of the Forest Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh, approached the High 161 Court challenging  the provisional integrated gradation list

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of Forest officers of the former Andhra and Hyderabad States published under  the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, as  annexure to  a State Government order dated January 27, 1962.  The contentions  raised by  the petitioner in the writ petition  were mainly  two-fold. Firstly,  it was urged that the  inter-se seniority  between the  appellant and the 6th respondent,  both of  whom originally  belonged  to  the Andhra Cadre,  had been  wrongly fixed  in  the  provisional gradation list  by showing  the 6th  respondent as senior to the appellant, whereas the appellant was legally entitled to seniority  over   the  6th   respondent.  Secondly,  it  was contended that  respondents Nos.  3, 4,  5, 7 and 8 who were officers allotted  to the  State of  Andhra Pradesh from the Telengana region  of the  former Hyderabad  State, had  been erroneously  assigned  ranks  above  the  appellant  in  the integrated gradation  list in  violation of  the  principles laid down  by the  Government of India for equation of posts and the  fixation of  inter-se seniority between the persons drawn from the two sources.      By the  time the  writ petition  came  up  for  hearing before the  learned single judge, the Central Government had already set  right the  appellant’s grievance concerning his ranking and  the seniority  in relation to respondents 3, 4, 5, 7  and 8.  It therefore  became unnecessary  for  him  to pursue the  second contention  aforementioned and  hence  he pressed before  the  learned  single  judge  only  the  plea concerning his  claim for  seniority over the 6th respondent was well  founded. Accordingly,  the  learned  single  judge found that  the contention put forward by the appellant that he was  entitled to  seniority over  the 6th  respondent was well founded.  Accordingly, the  learned judge  allowed  the writ petition  and issued  a writ  of mandamus directing the State Government  and the  Government of India to modify the gradation list by showing the appellant as senior to the 6th respondent.      The 6th  respondent carried the matter in appeal before a Division  Bench of the High Court by filing Appeal No. 691 of 1978.  The Division  Bench took  the view  that since the prayer contained in the writ petition was for the issue of a writ of  mandamus directing  respondents  No.  1  and  2  to forbear from  implementing the  provisional  gradation  list published along  with the Government order dated January 27, 1962, and  inasmuch as  the petitioner  had not  pressed the said prayer for quashing of the list in so for as it related to the  officers of Telengana region (respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8), the writ petition should have been dismissed on that short ground and the question relating to inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the 162 6th respondent ought not to have been decided by the learned single judge.  In this  view, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal,  set aside  the order  passed  by  the  learned single judge  and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant has come  up to  this Court  questioning  the  legality  and correctness of the aforesaid reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench.      It is  true that  the writ  petition contained a prayer for the  quashing of  the gradation  list in  so far  as  it related to  the inter-se ranking of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents Nos.  3 to  8 and the petitioner (appellant) had also sought  the issuance  of a  writ of  mandamus directing respondents Nos.  1 and  2 to  forbear from  implementing or acting upon  the said  gradation list. But subsequent to the institution of the writ petition, the Central Government has refixed the  ranks of  respondents Nos.  3, 4,  5, 7  and  8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

(Telengana officers)  and placed  them below  the  appellant thereby redressing  the grievance of the appellant in so far as it pertained to the ranking of the aforesaid respondents. It therefore  became unnecessary for the appellant to pursue his claim  for relief  with respect to the ranks assigned to those five  respondents. It  was under  those  circumstances that the appellant submitted before the learned single judge of the  High Court, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, that  he was pressing the writ petition only in so far as  it related  to his  claim for seniority over the 6th respondent. We  fail to  see how the fact that the appellant had sought  in the  writ petition  the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing  respondents 1  and  2  to  forbear  from implementing or  acting upon  the provisional gradation list will operate  to preclude  him from seeking a lesser relief, namely, the  quashing of the list only so far as it pertains to the  fixation of  the inter-se  seniority between himself and the 6th respondent. The material facts and circumstances had undergone  a substantial change subsequent to the filing of the  original petition  and it was in consequence thereof that it  had become unnecessary for the petitioner to pursue his original  prayer for  the  grant  of  a  larger  relief. Besides ignoring  this crucial aspect, the Division Bench of the High  Court has  also lost sight of the well established principle that  in an  action where a party has prayed for a larger relief  it is  always open  to the court to grant him any smaller  relief that  he may  be found to be entitled in law and  thereby render  substantial justice.  The Court can undoubtedly take  note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the  relief to  be granted  to the  party concerned in order to  mete out  justice in  the case. As far as possible the anxiety  and endeavour  of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is 163 brought  to  its  notice  rather  than  deny  relief  to  an aggrieved party  on purely  technical and  narrow procedural grounds. We  do not,  therefore, find  it possible to uphold the view  expressed by  the Division Bench of the High Court that since the writ petition was not pressed in so far as it related to  the officers  belonging to  the Telengana region the  question   of  inter-se   seniority  between  the  writ petitioner and  the 6th  respondent  should  not  have  been considered by  the single judge and the writ petition should have been dismissed.      Accordingly, we  set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and remand the writ appeal to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties will bear their respective costs in this appeal. N.V.K.                                        Appeal allowed 164