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 44065
Mrs Shyamala Pappu and Girish Chandra for the Appellant
Narayana Nettar for Respondents 4 and 5 3 1338SCI76 828 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
The judgment under appeal after certificate of fitness of the case under Article 1331c of the Constitu tion of India is very short as it purports to follow the ratio decidendi of Union of India vs
GM Shankariah  Ors
1 where this Court had held upon a concession by the Attorney General that a list prepared under Section 115 of the  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 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 SLR 1969 p1 C As
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
PK 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 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
vs Ram Chand  Ant   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 1 202
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 PK 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 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 vs
GR Prabhavalkar  Ors
1 where it was held by this Court at p 2106 1 AIR 1973 Sc 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 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 RD 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
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
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
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 prepared829 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 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 vs
GM Shankariah  Ors etc
SLR 1969 p 1  C As
1439  1446 of 1967 decided on 16 10 1968 explained
Union of India  Anr
v PK Roy  Ors
1968 2 SCR 186  202 and Union of India vs
GR Prabhavalkar  Ors  at 2106 followed