Case: Union of India &amp; Others Vs. G.R. Prabhavalkar &amp; Others

Government to the State Government.The entire proceedings resulting in the order of February 15, 1969 leave doubt in our minds that Central Government have considered only very relevant factors and the decision has also been taken in conformity with the provisions of the Act.They also show that the Central Government has given a proper consideration to the representations made by the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh Officers. The order deals with every one of the points raised in both sets of representations and it also gives elaborately the reasons for rejecting the representations of the Bombay Officers and for accepting those of the Madhya Pradesh Officers.20. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that it is only necessary that the authorities concerned should bear in mind the four factors, referred to earlier, in the matter of equation of posts. According to him, when once these factors have been properly taken into account, the mere fact that certain other additional or incidental matters relevant to the question have also been considered, will not vitiate the orders passed by the Central Government. In this connection the learned Additional Solicitor General drew our attention to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zemindar of Parlakimedi, 70 Ind App 129 = (AIR 1943 PC 164) The provision that the Judicial Committee had to consider was contained in sub-section (2) of Section l68 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908, that in settling rents the collector "shall have regard to the provisions of this Act". The Judicial Committee held that these provisions only require that they must be taken into consideration by the Officers concerned and it is impossible to say that there is a duty on the part of Officers to keep rigidly within the limits imposed by these provisions. Based upon this decision, the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General was that even if certain other additional matters relevant to the question have been taken into account by the Central Government, its order cannot be considered to be erroneous. In our view, the earlier order dated April 23, l960 as well as the latter order dated February 15, l969 have both passed by the Central Government having due regard to the principles settled for purposes of equation of posts. In this view, it is not necessary for us to consider the point raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General based upon the decision of the Judicial Committee.21. This order of February 15, l969, has not, in our view, received due consideration at the hands of the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court has dealt mainly with the order dated April 23,1960, as well as the consequential orders passed by the State Government. As we are satisfied that the order of February 15, 1969, has been passed by the Central Government on a proper consideration of all relevant factors and materials, it is not necessary for us to deal elaborately with the reasons given by the High Court for striking down the previous order, except to say that the High Courts view in respect of those matters is not justified. Even the grievance that the Bombay Officers did not have an opportunity to make any representation before the order dated April 23, 1960 was passed, has now been removed by the Central Government furnishing the said opportunity before it passed the order of February 15, 1963. Even before us, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7, has not been able to point out infirmities, if any, in this order.22. The criticism of Mr. Singhvi learned counsel, levelled against the order of February 15, 1969 that the Central Government did not give a personal hearing to the Bombay Officers before, passing the order, need not detain us long. Though such a grievance was made faintly during the arguments in the Writ Petition, the High Court has not struck down even this order on this ground. The High Court, in the judgment, has stated that the proceedings were adjourned on March 19, 1968, to enable "the Central Government to consider the representations of the Writ Petitioners." Therefore the High Court, which passed the order of March 19, l968, adjourning the proceedings had understood that the object of the said adjournment was to enable the Writ Petitioners to "make representations" and that the Central Government should properly consider the same. Admittedly, representations were made by the Writ Petitioners and as stated earlier by us, they have been dealt with by the Central Government in its order dated February 15, 1969. Section 115 (5) (b) refers to a proper consideration of any representation made by any officer. This is satisfied in this case. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel, drew our attention to the decision of this Court in N. Subba v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 862 = (AIR 1973 SC 69 ), and urged that it is implicit in the said decision that there is an obligation on the Central Government to give a personal hearing to the Officers concerned under the Act. We have gone through the decision carefully and we do not find any basis for this contention. Therefore, there is no substance in this criticism of Mr. Singhvi.23. Mr. Singhvi learned counsel, then referred us to the fact that after the judgment of the High Court the State Government has passed an order on March 19, 197l, the effect of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade III, of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. 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 principles governing equation of posts and prepare a common gradation list by integration of services. To assist it in the task of integration of services and for a proper consideration of representations, the Central Government 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 opportunity 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.14. It is no doubt true that the Central Government must have due regard to the principles 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 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 male fide or arrived at on totally irrelevant and extraneous considerations, such a decision can be interfered with by Courts.In this case, no male fides are alleged.In our view, the High Court has grossly erred. In the case of equation of posts, especially among officers who are allotted from other States, it cannot be done with any mathematical accuracy. There will be some hardship or other caused to the Officers of one particular region or other. That is inevitable when the service conditions of the officers coming from different regions vary. When the Central Government was impleaded as a party in the Writ Petition before the High Court, an affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Home Affairs, was filed. That affidavit very exhaustively deals with the circumstances under which the Sales Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh were equated with Sales Tax Officers, Grade II, of Bombay by the Central Governments order dated April 23, .1960. The Central Government had constituted the Central Advisory Committee as is required under sub-section (5) of S. 115 of the Act. The composition of the Committee has been referred to earlier. It was, after taking into account the views of the Central Advisory Committee and having due regard to the comments of the State Governments, and the representations made by the officers concerned that the Central Government took the decision. The factors which had to be taken into account as per the decision taken at the conference held in May, 1956, were all duly stated to have been considered by the Central Government. We do not find that any irrelevant or extraneous matters have influenced the decision of the Central Government.17. It is true that a decision taken by the Central Government without giving an opportunity to the officers affected to make representations, is not a validhave already referred to the fact that originally the State Government equated the Madhya Pradesh Officers with Sales Tax Officers Grade III, of Bombay. The Madhya Pradesh Officers filed representations to the Central Government against this equation. It is not clear from the records whether any counter representations were received by the Central Government from the Bombay Officers. Nor is it clear whether the Central Government called upon the Bombay Officers to offer their comments or views on the claims made by the Madhya Pradesh Officers. Anyhow the order came to be passed on April 23, 1960. This order has been struck down by the High Court, not on the ground that the Bombay Officers have not been given an opportunity to make representations, but on other grounds.18. Assuming that the Central Government did not give an opportunity to the Bombay Officers to make their representations before passing the order of April 23, l960, the defect in this regard stands rectified by the fresh order passed on February 15, 1969. We have already referred to the fact that during the hearing of the Writ Petition, after the Central Government was impleaded, a representation was made on its behalf that the Union Government was willing to review the equation of posts of Sales Tax Officers from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the affected officers from the various integrating areas. This representation was incorporated in an order of Court dated March 19, 1968 and the proceedings stood adjourned. There is no controversy that all the officers concerned, including the Bombay Officers made representations to the Central Government. The Bombay Officers wanted the order of April 23, 1960, to be modified by equating the Madhya Pradesh Officers with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade III, of Bombay, as was originally done by the State Government. The Madhya Pradesh Officers, on the other hand, reinforced their claim to sustain the order of April 23, 1960. The Central Government passed the order on February 15, 1969, which was made known to the learned Judges hearing the Writ Petition. In fact this is also one of the orders that has been struck down by the High Court. When the order has been struck down, it is quite reasonable to infer that the Court and all parties were fully aware of the very elaborate reasons given by the Central Government for equating the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Officers with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade II of Bombay. There was no attack, so far as we could see levelled by the Writ Petitioners against this order of the Central Government excepting that a personal hearing was not given to them by the Central Government. The High Court brushed aside this order by a mere statement that the additional matters that was considered by the Central Government related to the hierarchy of revenue officers under the Land Revenue Code and that the said matter is outside those to be considered according to the minutes of the joint conference of the representatives of the State and the Centralour view, the earlier order dated April 23, l960 as well as the latter order dated February 15, l969 have both passed by the Central Government having due regard to the principles settled for purposes of equation of posts. In this view, it is not necessary for us to consider the point raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General based upon the decision of the Judicial Committee.21. This order of February 15, l969, has not, in our view, received due consideration at the hands of the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court has dealt mainly with the order dated April 23,1960, as well as the consequential orders passed by the State Government. As we are satisfied that the order of February 15, 1969, has been passed by the Central Government on a proper consideration of all relevant factors and materials, it is not necessary for us to deal elaborately with the reasons given by the High Court for striking down the previous order, except to say that the High Courts view in respect of those matters is not justified. Even the grievance that the Bombay Officers did not have an opportunity to make any representation before the order dated April 23, 1960 was passed, has now been removed by the Central Government furnishing the said opportunity before it passed the order of February 15, 1963. Even before us, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7, has not been able to point out infirmities, if any, in this order.22. The criticism of Mr. Singhvi learned counsel, levelled against the order of February 15, 1969 that the Central Government did not give a personal hearing to the Bombay Officers before, passing the order, need not detain us long. Though such a grievance was made faintly during the arguments in the Writ Petition, the High Court has not struck down even this order on this ground. The High Court, in the judgment, has stated that the proceedings were adjourned on March 19, 1968, to enable "the Central Government to consider the representations of the Writ Petitioners." Therefore the High Court, which passed the order of March 19, l968, adjourning the proceedings had understood that the object of the said adjournment was to enable the Writ Petitioners to "make representations" and that the Central Government should properly consider the same. Admittedly, representations were made by the Writ Petitioners and as stated earlier by us, they have been dealt with by the Central Government in its order dated February 15, 1969. Section 115 (5) (b) refers to a proper consideration of any representation made by any officer. This is satisfied in thishave gone through the decision carefully and we do not find any basis for this contention. Therefore, there is no substance in this criticism of Mr.order, in our opinion, has been passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous.