Appeal No 330 of 1956
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and decree dated September 5 1955 of the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No 76 of 1954
A V Viswanatha Sastri and Ratnaparkhi A G for the appellant
R Ganapathy Iyer Ram Avtar Gupta and T M Sen for the respondent
November 28
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J
This appeal arises out of a writ petition for mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution
The appellant was a District and Sessions Judge in the former Bikaner State
He was appointed on January 29 1948 in the grade of Rs 500 40 700 and worked as such till April 7 1949
On that date a new State of Rajasthan was formed by the integration of a number of States including the former State of Bikaner by means of a Covenant signed by the High Contracting Parties
Article XVI 1 of the Covenant ran thus  The United State hereby guarantees either the continuance in service of the permanent members of 1015 the public services of the former Rajasthan State and of each of the new Covenanting States on conditions which will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving on the 1st November 1948 or the payment of reasonable compensation or retirement on proportionate pension
 The integration necessarily involved a reorganisation of the various services in the several integrating States
On the judicial side it was found that there were as many as twenty eight Courts of District and Sessions Judges in the aggregate
In the integrated State it was proposed to have only fifteen
The reorganisation took time and in the interval certain interim arrangements had to be made
These arrangements are set out in a Rajasthan Gazette Notification dated May 25 1950
We append the relevant extracts  4
In Appendix F have been indicated the provisional postings on an ad hoc basis of the posts specified in Appendices A to E           6
All the appointments mentioned in the different Appendices attached to this Order are provisional
The emoluments of none of these officers appointed are being affected and they will continue to draw their existing salaries until further orders
All the appointments are without prejudice to the creation of a Judicial Service in Rajasthan to be formed in accordance with the rules which may be made therefor
 Appendix F is headed Ad hoc postings of Judicial Officers to Civil and Sessions Courts
 The appellant was appointed under this beading in Part 11 as a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge in the Jaipur Division
But before this Notification was made namely on December 9 1949 the appellant received the following order from the new Rajasthan Government  Shri Amar Singh District and Sessions Judge Churu is transferred to Ganganagar as District and Sessions Judge Ganganagar
 129 1016 Among other contentions the appellant relies on this as an election by the new Government to continue him in his original post and contends that it could not later change its mind and make his service provisional as it purported to do in the notification just cited
Two months after the notification namely on July 31 1950 the appellant s increment became due and Government sanctioned it in the following terms  Sanction is accorded to the grant of a stipulated increment of Rs 40 pm in the scale of Rs 500 40 700 to Shri Rajvi Amarsingh District and Sessions Judge in Bikaner Division with effect from the 23rd March 1950 thereby raising his salary from Rs 540 to Rs 580 pm When the final re organisation was brought into force and the twenty eight Courts of District and Sessions Judges reduced to fifteen the appellant was posted as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge on an ad hoc basis on May 25 1950
On September 11 1950 the appellant made a representation to the Government of Rajasthan against his posting of May 25 1950 as an ad hoc Civil and Additional Sessions Judge
He says in his writ petition to the High Court that  he was given to understand that these ad hoc postings were without prejudice to the claims of the Government servants for a suitable position in the integrated set up on permanent basis
 This allegation was admitted by the opposite party
Later he was appointed substantively as Civil Judge on April 23 1951
He was placed in Group C Civil Judges and Munsiffs and placed at No 18 in the list of junior posts
His pay and emoluments were as before and he retained the same grading namely Rs 500 40 700
His earned increments were not affected and except for the change in name his conditions of service were not worse than when he was in the service of the Bikaner State
We were given the last two facts by his counsel
They do not appear in the paper book
All that is to be found there are 1017 references to these orders but the orders themselves have not been included
Being aggrieved by this the appellant filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises on April 3 1954
His contention was that under the guarantee given by the United State of Rajasthan and also otherwise he was entitled to be posted as a District and Sessions Judge in the new set up and that the posting of April 23 1951 reduced him in rank
As that was done without affording him an opportunity to show cause article 311 of the Constitution was violated
The High Court held that the posting of April 23 1951 which purports to appoint the appellant substantively as a Civil Judge is wrong and that it must be treated as an ad hoc appointment till proper appointments are made to the Judicial Service of Rajasthan according to the Constitution of India
The learned Judges held that as there had been a clear declaration that a new Judicial Service was to be created in Rajasthan and that the existing officers from the various covenanting States were not to be taken into it as a matter of course it followed that all appointments to it would be by way of fresh recruitment and as the Constitution of India was in force at that date these recruitments must conform to its provisions
It was admitted before the learned Judges that after the Constitution only the Rajpramukh had power to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of those appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State until provision in that behalf is made by an Act of the Legislature and it was also admitted that the State Public Service Commission must be consulted
As this was not done the learned Judges directed as follows  The petition is allowed the postings made by notification dated the 23rd April 1951 including that of the petitioner as Civil Judge are declared to be on an ad hoc basis and a direction is made to the Government to provide a machinery according to the 1018 provisions of the Constitution for the first recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service
 The judgment was delivered on September 5 1955 and the appellant thereupon came here and was granted special leave to appeal on April 16 1956
In the meanwhile according to the facts set out in the respondent s statement of the case the Rajasthan Government complied with the orders of the High Court reframed their rules and made fresh appointments in accordance with them
These were duly published in the Rajasthan Gazette and the appellant was finally selected to the Rajasthan Judicial Service
He was appointed a Civil Judge
The Appellant s contention is that the order of April 23 1951 reduced him in rank and as he was not afforded an opportunity of showing cause article 311 of the Constitution was violated
If this contention is sound it will follow that the fresh appointment as Civil Judge after the High Court s order will also be bad for the same reasons
Now it is well established that when one State is absorbed in another whether by accession conquest merger or integration all contracts of service between the prior Government and its servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve in the new State and are taken on by it serve on such terms and conditions as the new State may choose to impose
This is nothing more though on a more exalted scale than an application of the principle that underlies the law of Master and Servant when there is a change of masters
So far as this Court is concerned the law is settled by the decision in The State of Madras vs K M Rajagopalan 1 which follows the decisions of the Privy Council and the House of Lords in Reilly vs The King 2 and Nokes vs Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd 3
The distinction between rights to property and contractual rights when there is a change of sovereignty was pointed out in Virendra Singh  others vs The State of Uttar Pradesh 4
1   562
2 3 4   427
1019 The appellant founds on article XVI1 of the Covenant
It was contended that he cannot rely on this because he was not a party to it but we need not decide this because even if this be assumed to be the law of the new State settling the conditions of service of those who continue in service all that it says is that the conditions of their service will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving on November 1 1948
We have shown above that this condition is fulfilled
But that apart Article XVI1 indicates that the old contracts terminate just as they did in The State Of Madras vs K M Rajagopalan 1
In the first place there were three options 1 continuance in service 2 payment of reasonable compensation and 3 retirement on proportionate pension
That shows that the old contracts terminated and that those who continued in service did so on the basis of fresh contracts the conditions of which had yet to be determined
The only guarantee assuming that the appellant can avail himself of it was that the new conditions were not to be less advantageous than those on which the appellant was serving on November 1 1948
There was no guarantee that they would be the same or better
This was emphasised in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated June 4 1949
It first referred to the broad outlines of the programme of integration that had already been published and then outlined the procedure and principles to be observed in carrying it out
Paragraph 6 is as follows After final orders have been passed by the Government on the Departmental re organisation schemes and cadres and strength for different kinds of establishments in each department are fixed the heads of departments will prepare gradation lists according to prescribed rules and put up proposals for fixation of each individual Government servant in the posts on permanent officiating or deputation basis
1   562 1020 They will also determine the revised rates of pay admissible to each Gazetted and non Gazetted officer under the new scales etc and then paragraph 15  It is not the intention of Government to throw any Government servant out of employ as far as practicable
If necessary services of efficient and deserving staff will be retained temporarily on supernumerary basis in the prospect of finding work for them in connection with new development schemes
 The order of December 91949 on which the appellant relies transferring him as District and Sessions Judge to the District Court at Ganganagar must be read subject to the above and if Article XVI1 of the Covenant applies then subject to that as well
An order of transfer cannot be equated to an order of appointment and in any case the new cadres had not been established and the new Courts under the proposed scheme of re organisation had not been constituted so anything done at that stage could only have been part and parcel of the temporary transitional arrangements pending the final settlement by the new State of the schemes and conditions of service
The next set of orders published in the Gazette of May 25 1950 brings this out clearly
We have already set out its terms
The orders of March 25 1950 and July 31 1950 sanctioning the increment do not help the appellant
He is described there as  Shri Rajvi Amarsingh District and Sessions Judge in Bikaner Division
 This is merely descriptive as the endorsement on the letter indicates
It runs  Copy forwarded to 1 Shri Amarsingh Civil and Addl
Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu
 No determination to post the appellant permanently in a particular cadre and post can be spelled out of these accidental descriptions in orders dealing with a different matter
Postings to a cadre and engagements of service are not made in this incidental way
1021 The substantive appointment gazetted on April 23 1951 after the new cadres and Courts had been fixed was struck down by the High Court and the Government of Rajasthan was directed to treat that as an ad hoc appointment
According to the respondent in its statement of the case the matter was regularised after the High Court s decision and the appellant was again appointed a Civil Judge
If that is so then this must be regarded as his first substantive appointment in the new State
But whether this is his first substantive appointment after the integration or the one of April 23 1951 no question of reduction in rank can arise and so article 311 is not attracted
All his previous postings in the new State were purely transitional and temporary and so far as article XVI1 of the Covenant is concerned its guarantee has been fulfilled
The appeal is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 121e of the MP Accommodation Control Act 1961
The appellant tenant contended that the respondent landlord was already in occupation of accommodation sufficient to meet his requirement and that the suit was filed in order to extract higher rent
The trial court decreed the suit
The first appellate court applying the tests which appeared to it to be objective found that the need in respect of suit accommodation was not a bona fide one and allowed the appeal of the appellant tenant
E In second appeal by the respondent landlord the High Court held that the first appellate court had drawn wrong inferences that there was no proper appreciation of facts and that all the facts had not been borne in mind
It allowed the appeal restored the order of the trial court and ordered eviction
Allowing the appeal  HELD The need of the landlord must be reasonable and must be bona fide in order to evict the tenant on the relevant provisions of the various Acts
Whether in a particular situation the need was reasonable or bona fide must be judged from the objective view point not merely by assertion or denial of the parties
46E F In second appeal the scope of interference by the High Court is limited
47A Mattulal vs Radhe Lal   relied on
45 In the instant case prima facie it might be possible to hold that the High Court was in error in interfering with the findings of the first appellate court
But in view of the fact that subsequent to the decision of the High Court the first wife of the landlord had died and the accommodation which was in her occupation has become vacant and taking into cautious consideration the subsequent events it must be held that there was no more bona fide need of the landlord to evict the tenant of the premises in question
Order of eviction has therefore to be set aside
47F H