http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. R.D. NANJIAH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1976

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  161            1977 SCR  (1) 827  1976 SCC  (4) 412

ACT:             States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956) s. 115--Opportu-         nity  to  hear  after final inter-State  seniority  list  is         prepared  after  giving  opportunity to  aggrieved  to  make         representations  against  provisional  list--If  should   be         given.         Final list, when may be set aside by Court.

HEADNOTE:             (1  ) When a provisional inter-State seniority  list  is         prepared for integrating services after States  re-organisa-         tion,  there  is a possibility of  some  mistakes  occurring         about  the  facts of a case or in the  .application  of  the         relevant statute or rules or executive directions  governing         seniority.   It would, therefore, be quite fair to give  the         person  affected  an  opportunity to be  heard  against  the         proposed  list before it is made final under 8.  115.  State         Reorganisation  Act, 1956, so that. any  possible  mistakes,         either  in the facts relating to his case or in the  law  or         rule  applied  with regard to the proposed assignment  of  a         place  to him in the seniority list may be rectified.   But,         once  he  had that opportunity. it cannot be  said  that  he         should  have  a  further opportunity against  even  a  final         seniority  list,  for then such a list would not  really  be         final but will only he provisional or preliminary. [830 C-D]             (2)  But, even a final list, if it is prepared  contrary         to the rules applicable or is vitiated on some ground  show-         ing  that a condition precedent to the finalisation  of  the         list  is  absent, or a particular decision  is  malafide  or         arrived  at on totally irrelevant or  extraneous  considera-         tions.  such a final list could be declared invalid  by  the         Court. [830. G]             In the present case. the officer was not satisfied  with         the  position given to him the final seniority  list.   But,         since  he had an opportunity Under the integration rules  of         the  State  for filing objections  against  the  preliminary         provisional  list,  he cannot urge that he should  he  heard         again alter the final list was prepared.[829 A]             He cannot claim to have a say against the final list  on         the analogy of a second opportunity to show cause against  a         proposed  punishment in a departmental enquiry, because.  no         element  of  punishment is involved in  preparing  either  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       provisional or a final seniority list. [830 B]             He is not entitled to any relief because he had not made         out in his petition to the Court any of the grounds on which         a final list can be assailed. [831 G]             Union  of  India v.G.M. Shankariah & Ors.  etc.  (S.L.R.         1969 p. 1 ) (C As. Nos. 1439 & 1446 of 1967--decided on  16-         10-1968) explained.             Union of India & Anr. v P.K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2  S.C.R.         186  @  202 and Union of India v.G.R.  Prabhavalkar  &  Ors.         A.I.R. 1973 SC 2102 at 2106, followed.

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal   No.   1744         of 1968.             (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  14-6-1967 of the Mysore High Court in  Writ  Petition         No. 440/65).         Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Girish Chandra, for the Appellant.              Narayana Nettar, for Respondents 4 and 5.         3 -- 1338SCI/76         828         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             BEG, J.--The judgment under appeal after certificate  of         fitness of the case under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitu-         tion  of India, is very short as it purports to  follow  the         ratio  decidendi of Union of India v.G.M. Shankariah &  Ors.         etc.,(1) where this Court had held upon a concession by  the         Attorney General, that a list prepared under Section 115  of         the  States Reorganisation Act, 1956, (hereinafter  referred         to  as ’the Act’), was provisional. Therefore, it  was  held         that  the writ petition was premature as the final  list  of         officers  on  an integrated seniority list was still  to  be         prepared after hearing objections.             The  High Court of Mysore seems to have been  under  the         misapprehension that the case now before us is also governed         by what  was held by this Court in Shankariah’s case (supra)         with reference to an entirely different and provisional list         of  Forest  Officers.  The case now before  us  pertains  to         Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services of the Mysore State         in which the petitioner, was given, in the final integration         list,  a  position  to which he  objected.  Apparently,  the         petitioner, whose date of birth is given as 28th June, 1915,         has retired.  He is a respondent who has not appeared before         us,  and,  therefore, could not be heard by  us.   We  have,         however,  gone through his petition and the affidavit  filed         in  its support where, in paragraph 16, he  states  as  fol-         lows:                             "The Mysore State Civil Service Integra-                       tion Rules 1960 provide for filing  objections                       only  against  the   preliminary   provisional                       Inter-State Seniority List and do not  provide                       any provision for filing objections or appeal-                       ing  against the final  Inter-State  Seniority                       List  as  per Annexure ’B’.  Thus we  have  no                       other  legal remedies open to us for  the  re-                       dressal of our grievances and the  abridgement                       of our fundamental rights guaranteed under the                       Constitution of India, and, therefore, we  are                       forced to approach this Honble Court to invoke                       the writ jurisdiction for the redressal."                           It  is  apparent that  the  petitioner-re-                       spondent was claiming relief against the final                       Inter-State  seniority  list although  he  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

                     given due opportunity to object to the  provi-                       sional  list.   Mrs. Shyamala Pappu,  who  has                       looked up the departmental records, informs us                       that  the petitioner was given ample  opportu-                       nity to file his objections to the preliminary                       list.                           Now,  Shankariah’s case (supra)  was  con-                       fined to an admission on behalf of the Central                       Government that the list before the Court  was                       provisional so that the petitioners before the                       Court on that occasion were to get  opportuni-                       ties of puting forward their objections before                       the  final  list  is prepared.   In  the  case                       before  us,  the petitioner  admits  that  the                       Mysore State Civil Services Integration  Rules                       provided for filing of objections against  the                       preliminary  provisional  Inter-State Seniori-                       ty list.  Presumably, he had that opportunity.                       Otherwise,  he would, no doubt  have  objected                       that the rules had not been complied                       (1)  S.L.R. 1969 p.1 (C. As. Nos. 1439 &  1446                       of 1967--decided on 16-10-1968).                       829                       with,  which  he did not  do.   His  grievance                       seemed  to be that he was not heard after  the                       final  list  was prepared.  We are  unable  to                       appreciate. this line of attack upon the final                       list.                           We think that the concession in  Shankari-                       ah’s  case (supra)  was confined to the  facts                       of  that particular ease.  There the list  was                       provisional.  The most that could be urged, in                       the light of decisions of this Court, is  that                       a  person whose seniority is to be  determined                       under Section 115 of the Act must be given. an                       opportunity to object to the proposed  assign-                       ment of a place to him in the seniority  list.                       As already observed above, the petitioner  had                       ample  opportunity  to  do that.   Hence,  the                       principle  recognised  in  Shankariah’s   case                       (supra) was not applicable to such a case.                           The judgment of the Mysore High Court was,                       in  our  opinion, based on an apparent  misun-                       derstanding  of Shankariah’s case (supra)  and                       on  a failure to appreciate the facts  of  the                       case of the petitioner respondent which is now                       before us.  There was not reference whatsoever                       to any facts of the case in the order of a few                       lines  by which the petitioner’s petition  was                       disposed of by the High Court  on the  errone-                       ous assumption that it was governed by   Shan-                       kariah’s case     (supra).                        As  the petitioner in the High Court, who  is                       the, respondent before us, was  unrepresented,                       Mrs.  Shymala  Pappu, appearing on  behalf  of                       Union of India, very Conscientiously, took  us                       through  Union  of India & Anr. v.P.K.  Roy  &                       Ors.(’1) from which, learned Counsel  thought,                       the  following observations could  perhaps  be                       cited  on behalf of the  petitioner-respondent                       (at p. 202):                                "it was argued by Mr. Ashoke Sen that                       in regard  to both these matters the  respond-                       ents  have a right of representation  and  the                       final  gradation  list should have  been  pub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

                     lished   after  giving  them   further   oppor                       tunity  to  make a  representation.   Normally                       speaking,  we  should have  thought  that  one                       opportunity   for  making   a   representation                       against  the preliminary list published  would                       have  been sufficient to satisfy the  require-                       ments of law. But the extent and applicationof                       the  doctrine  of natural justice  cannot   be                       imprisoned  within  the straight-jacket  of  a                       rigid formula. The application of the doctrine                       depends  upon the nature of  the  jurisdiction                       conferred  on  the  administrative  authority,                       upon  the character of the rights of the  per-                       sons  affected, the scheme and policy  of  the                       statute   and  other  relevant   circumstances                       disclosed  in  the particular  case  (See  the                       decision  of  this Court in Shri  Bhagwan  and                       Anr.  v.  Ram Chand & Ant. [1965] 3  SCR  218,                       222.  In view of the special circumstances  of                       the present Case we think that the respondents                       were  entitled  to an opportunity  to  make  a                       representation  with regard to the two  points                       urged  by  Mr. Ashoke Sen  before  the   final                       gradation  list  was published.   As  no  such                       opportunity  was furnished to the  respondents                       with regard to these two matters                       (1) (1968 S.C.R. 186at 202.                       830                       we hold that  the  combined  final   gradation                       list  dated April 6, 1962, so far as  category                       6 is concerned, is ultra vires and illegal and                       that  part of the notification alone  must  be                       quashed  by grant of a writ in the  nature  of                       certiorari".         We think that any claim to have a say against the final fist         prepared, on an analogy with the second opportunity which is         afforded  to   a person to be punished after arriving  at  a         decision  on the facts of a departmental trial and  proposal         to inflict a particular  punishment upon him, is quite inap-         propriate.   No element of punishment at all is involved  in         preparing  either a provisional or a final  seniority  list.         All  that is done is that certain principles are applied  in         the preparation of the list.  These principles are generally         found  in the rules or executive directions which are  known         to or are capable of being found out by the persons  affect-         ed.  When a provisional seniority  fist  is prepared,  there         is a possibility of some mistakes occurring about the  facts         of  a case or in the application of those rules.  It  would,         therefore, be quite fair to give a person affected an ’oppo-         rtunity  to be heard against the proposed fist before it  is         finalised  so that any  possible mistakes, either  on  facts         relating  to his particular case or of law in  applying  the         rules governing seniority to those facts, may be  rectified.         But, once he has had that opportunity, it cannot possibly be         said that he should have a further opportunity against  even         a final  seniority list.  If he was to have that opportunity         the  list would not really be final but only provisional  or         preliminary.  It will be obviously contradictory to hold  it         to be a final list and yet declare  it Subject to  modifica-         tions on further objections.  We are unable to find any rule         of natural justice having such a paralysing scope.             In P.K. Roy’s case (supra), the opportunity afforded was         to  be given before the publication of the final  list.   It         was an opportunity to be given before the final list was  to         be  declared  and  published as a final list.   A  right  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       representation  was recognised as existing at time when  the         list was still to be considered as not finalised  presumably         because some mistakes had crept in due to want of heating on         two  points.   Evidently  what was  meant   was   that   the         publication  gave  the list finality.   In  that  particular         case,  the fist had been prepared without due regard to  the         particular  important  points  which had  to  be  considered         before finalisation.             What  we  have observed does not mean that, if  a  final         list  is  prepared contrary to the rules  applicable  or  is         vitiated  on some ground showing that a condition  precedent         to the finalisation of the list is absent, it would still be         inviolable  ,Dr  sacrosanct.  Even a list purporting  to  be         final can be vitiated by non-observance of conditions prece-         dent.   In  order to establish the invalidity of  the  final         list  on some such grounds of invalidity, those grounds have         to  be shown to exist.  We find no such grounds in the  ease         before us.         Learned Counsel for the Central Government had cited before         us  Union of India v.G.R. Prabhavalkar & Ors. (1)  where  it         was held by this Court (at p. 2106):         (1) A.I.R. 1973’S.c. 2102 at 2106.         831                             "In  our opinion the contentions of  the                       learned Additional Solicitor General are  well                       founded.  The  Central Government, under  Sec.                       115  of the Act, has to determine the  princi-                       ples governing equation of posts and prepare a                       common  gradation  list  by  integration    of                       services.   To assist it in the task of  inte-                       gration of services and for  a proper  consid-                       eration  of representations, the Central  Gov-                       ernment  is  empowered to  establish  Advisory                       Committees. The Central Government is bound to                       ensure  a  fair  and  equitable  treatment  to                       officers  in  the matter  of   integration  of                       services  and preparation of gradation  lists.                       It has also to give a full and fair opportuni-                       ty  to  the  parties affected  to  make  their                       representations;  and the Central   Government                       has  also to ,give a proper  consideration  to                       those representations.  So long as the Central                       Government has acted properly according to the                       provisions of the Act, we are of the view that                       a Court cannot go into the merits or otherwise                       of equation of posts which is a matter  within                       the province of the Central Government".                       It was also held there (at p. 2106):                             "It  is no doubt true that  the  Central                       Government must have due regard to the princi-                       ples enunciated by it in consultation with the                       States  for the purpose of equation Of  posts.                       It must not only give an opportunity  to   the                       concerned  officers to  make  representations,                       but it must also give those representations  a                       proper  consideration.  It is not  within  the                       province of the Courts to lay down what are in                       the  principles to be adopted for purposes  of                       equation.   That falls within the  purview  of                       the  statute  concerned  and  the  authorities                       charged  with  such duty.  The  power  of  the                       Courts  is only to see that an  authority  has                       acted properly in accordance with the statute.                       If  that is established, the decision  of  the                       authorities concerned will have to stand. If a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

                     particular decision is mala fide or arrived at                       on totally irrelevant and extraneous consider-                       ations,  such  a decision can  be   interfered                       with by Courts.  In this case, no  mala  fides                       are alleged."                           We  find  that,  as was the  case  of  the                       petitioner in Prabhavalkar’s case (supra), the                       petitioner-respondent  Dr. R.D.  Nanjiah,  and                       others similarly placed respondents before  us                       have   been   unable  to make  out,  in  their                       petitions,  any grounds for interference  with                       the  final  list.  We, therefore,  allow  this                       appeal,  and set aside the judgment and  order                       of  the Mysore High Court.  The  parties  will                       bear  their own costs.         V.P.S.                                                Appeal         allowed.         832