l Appeals Nos
1868 to 1882 of 1969
Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 9 10 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos 1776 2108 2109 2111 2112 2272 2273 2275 2385 2386 2390 2395 and 2396 of 1966 and 728 and 990 of 1967
Jagadish Swarup Solicitor General section section Javali and section P Nayar for the appellant in all the appeals
MMama Jois and R B Datar for respondent No 1 in CAs
1868 to 1871 and 1874 to 1881 of 1969
832 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter J
The State of Mysore has come up in appeal from a common judgment of the High Court at Bangalore disposing of a number of writ petitions and holding void the compulsory transfer of the respondents herein to the Agricultural University under the provisions of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act 1963
As the same question arise Civil all these appeals it will be sufficient to state the facts in Appeal No 168 of 1969 in which one H Papanna Gowda is the respondent
The said respondent was appointed on January 7 1959 as an agricul tural demonstrator in the Mysore Civil Service
His appointment was as a local candidate  which under the Mysore Civil Service Rules means a person appointed not in accordance with the rules of recruitment
His services were however regularised when he was selected by the Public Service Commission for appointment to that post on August 27 1959
By an order dated April 4 1964 he was transferred and posted as a Chemical Assistant of the Sugarcane Research Station Mandya in the department of agriculture
When he was thus employed a law made by the State Legislature called the University of Agricultural Sciences Act
 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act  came into force on April 24 1964
Before the High Court the respondents to these appeals challenged the vires of section 75 of the Act and a notification issued thereunder
The preamble to the Act shows that it was an Act to estab lish and incorporate a University for the development of agriculture animal husbandry and allied sciences in the State of Mysore
Under section 32 the University was to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal
The powers given under section 6 of the Act enabled it inter alia to create administrative ministerial and other posts and to appoint persons to such posts
Under section 71 subject to the conditions therein mentioned several agricultural and veterinary colleges were disaffiliated from the Karnatak University or the University of Mysore and were to be maintained by the new University as constituent colleges
The control and management of these colleges were to stand transferred to the Agricultural University and all its properties and assets and liabilities and obligations of the State Government in relation thereto were to stand transferred to vest in or devolve upon the said University
Under sub section
4 of section 7 the control and management of such research and educational institutions of the Department of Agriculture the Department of Animal Husbandry and the Department of Fisheries of the State Government were as and from such date as the State Government 833 might by order specify to be transferred to the University and thereupon all the properties and assets and liabilities and obligations of the State Government in relation to such institutions were to stand transferred to vest in or devolve upon the University
omitting the proviso which is not relevant for our purpose sub section
5 provided Every person employed in any of the colleges specified in sub section 1 or in any of the institutions referred to in sub section 4 immediate before the appointed day or the date specified in the order under subsection 4 as the case may be shall as from the appointed day or the specified date become an employee of the University on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the State Government in consultation with the Board  The Board has been defined in section 2 clause 3 as the Board of Regents of the University
By notification dated September 29 1965 the control and management of a large number of research and educational institutions were transferred to the University with effect from October 1 1965
The Agricultural Research Institute Mandya where the respondent was working was one such institution
Not liking the change which his future prospects were likely to undergo as a result of the notification the respondent presented a writ petition seeking a declaration that sub sections
4 and 5 of section 7 of the Act Were invalid And for a further declaration that he continued to be a civil servant under the State Government
To put in brief the argument on this head was that he had been removed from a civil post under the State in contravention of the provisions of article 311
A further argument was put up that the respondent had been subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as persons who had been appointed in the same manner as himself and later in point of time than himself had been retained in the service of the State thereby infringing articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
It is not necessary to deal with the second point as the appellant in our opinion must fail on the first
There can be no dispute as indeed the learned Solicitor General was constrained to admit that the respondent and others who had filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the notification ceased to hold the civil posts which they held under the State of Mysore at the time when the notification was issued if it was to have full force and effect
Whether the prospects of the respondent were 11 L694Sup
CI71 834 or were not to be prejudicially affected if he was to become an employee of the University is not in point
However the learned Solicitor General drew our attention to paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit to the writ petition filed in the High Court where it was stated that the terms and conditions of transfer as agreed to by the Government and the University provided inter alia for the following 1Every employee of the Government on his transfer to the University shall enjoy the same pay scale
2 He was to be eligible for pensionary benefits in the same manner as he had while he was serving the Government
3 His claims for higher pay scales or higher positions under the University shall be deemed to be on a preferential basis in comparison with others provided the qualifications and experience were equal and 4Every employees of the Government on his transfer to the University was to be protected to the extent that the terms and conditions of his service under the University would not be altered to his detriment
We are not here concerned with the question as to whether for all practical purposes the respondent was not to be a loser as a result of the transfer
Evidently the respondent held the view that as a civil servant of the State of Mysore the prospects of promotion to higher posts with better scales of pay were greater in the service of the State with its manifold activities in various departments
For better or for worse the notification resulted in extinction of his status as a civil servant
The learned Solicitor General sought to rely on a judgment of the Punjab High Court in Amulya Kumar Talukdar vs Union of India and others1 a case which was considered by the High Court of Mysore in aid of his contention that the transfer of the kind effected in this case had been held to be valid by the Punjab High Court
The High Court at Bangalore went into the question rather elaborately and noted that there were many differences between the provisions of the  the Act impugned in the Punjab High Court and the Agricultural University Act of 1963
Tin the Punjab case the petitioner had initially been appointed by the Director Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur as a peon
As a result of the Act of 1956 the Institution declared to be one of national importance was constituted under the Act providing inter alia that the employees who were working in the Institute be fore were to hold office or service thereafter upon the 1 ILR 13 Punj
781 835 same terms and conditions and with the same rights and Privileges as to pension leave gratuity provident fund and other matters as they would have held the same on the date of commencement of
the Act as if the Act had not been passed
In the case before us the Act provides by sub section
5 of section 7 that the terms and conditions of the Government employees immediately before the appointed day or the date specified in the notification were to be such as might be determined by the State Government in consultation with the Board
The learned Judge of the Punjab High Court on the facts of that case found it unnecessary to examine the argument whether the assent given by the President to the Indian Institute of Technology Bill had the effect of terminating the status of the petitioners as Government servants by the President as also the argument raised on their behalf that their lien had been terminated under the Fundamental Rules without their consent
The Punjab decision can not therefore apply to the case as presented before us
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs
There will be one set of hearing fee
VPS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The University of Agricultural Sciences Act 1963 was passed by the Mysore State Legislature to establish a University for the development of agricultural and allied sciences in the State
Under section 74 of the Act the control and management of such research institutions of the department of agriculture as the State Government might by order specify were to be transferred to the University as and from the date specified and under sub section
5 every person employed in such an institution were as from the specified date to become an employee of the University on such terms and conditions as might be determined by the State Government in consultation with the Board of Regents of the University
The respondent was holding a civil post under the State Government having been appointed as a chemical assistant in the Agricultural Research Institute Mandya in the department of agriculture of the State
In 1965 the control and management of the Institute was transferred to the University by a notification under the Act
On the question whether there was a removal of the respondent from a civil post in contravention of article 311 HELD  Whether the prospects of the respondent were or were not prejudicially affected is irrelevant
For better or for worse the notification resulted in the extinction of his status as a civil servant and hence his compulsory transfer to the University was void
834 A F Amulya Kumar Talukdar vs Union of India ILR 13 Punj 781 distinguished