Case: N. Raghavendra Rao Vs. Deputy Commissioner, South Kanara,Mangalore

not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of these conditions." Therefore, it is evident from this memorandum that the Central Government had told the State Government that they might, if they so desire, change service rules as indicated in the memorandum. But Mr. Garg argues that even so this does not amount to previous approval within S. 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act to the making of the Mysore General services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959. What then is the true meaning of the expression "previous approval" in the proviso to S. 115 (7) ? Sub-section (7) of S. 115 provides that ;"7. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State ;Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-sec. (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government."The effect of this sub-section is, inter alia, to preserve the power of the State to make rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution, but the proviso imposes a limitation on the exercise of this power, and the limitation is that the State cannot vary the conditions of service applicable immediately before November 1, 1956, to the disadvantage of persons mentioned in subsecs. (1) and (2) of S. 115 It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of those persons.4. Mr. Garg has submitted that the very fact that the Mysore General Services (Revenue subordinate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959, as framed, were not sent to the Central Government for approval before being promulgated shows that previous approval has not been obtained. The memorandum, he says, is not approval but an abdication of the powers of the Central Government. In this connection he relies on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of In re Bosworth and Corporation of Gravesend, 1905-2 KB 426 but this decision has no bearing on the point under discussion. As Order in Council had been made under the provisions of the Burial Act, 1853, whereby it was ordered that no new burial ground shall be opened in (amongst other places) Gravesend, without the previous approval of one of Her Majestys Principal Secretaries of State. Permission was sought of the Secretary of State to add additional land to an existing cemetery. The Secretary of State replied that his sanction to the proposed addition was not required. It is this reply which was characterised by Collins, M.R., as renouncing of jurisdiction. We cannot appreciate how this assists us in interpreting the proviso to S. 115 (7). He further relied on the unreported judgment of the High Court of Mysore in C. K. Appanna v. State of Mysore, W.P. No. 88 of 1962 D/- 13-1-1964 : (AIR 1965 Mys 19) but this proceeds on a concession made by the Government Pleader and does not advance petitioners case. In our opinion, the setting in which the proviso to Section l15 (7) is placed, the expression "previous approval" would include a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, indicated by the Union Government. It has to be remembered that Art. 309 of the Constitution gives, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, full powers to a State Government to make rules. The proviso to S. 115 (7) limits that power, but trial limitation is removable by the Central Government by giving its previous approval. In this context, we think that could not have been the intention of Parliament that Service Rules made by States would be scrutinised in the minutest detail by the Central Government. Conditions vary from State to State and the details must be filled by each State according to its requirements. The broad purpose underlying the proviso to S. 115 (7) of the Act was to ensure that the conditions of service should not be changed except with the prior approval of the Central Government. In other words, before embarking on varying the conditions of service, the State Governments should obtain, the concurrence of the Central Government. In the memorandum, mentioned above, the Central Government, after examining various aspects, came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline, control classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion. In our opinion, this amounted to previous approval within the proviso to Section 115 (7). It may be mentioned that by this memorandum the State Governments were required to send copies of all new rules to the Central Government for its information. Therefore, in our opinion there is no force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and we hold that the rules were validly made.5. There are two preliminary hurdles in the way of the petitioner regarding the second point taken on his behalf. Firstly, the State of Madras has not been made a party to this petition. Secondly, he never raised these points while he was serving under the State of Madras. It is difficult at this Stage to challenge orders, which if quashed, would affect the rights of other civil servants who are not parties to this petition. At any rate, the petitioner has not been able to show how Art. 16 was infringed before he was allotted to the new Mysore State. The State in its reply has asserted that all the orders complained against were passed by competent authorities, after considering the merits of the petitioner on each occasion. It was for the competent authorities to judge the merits of the petitioner. We find no force in this contention and hold that no infringement of Art. 16 has been established.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, the setting in which the proviso to Section l15 (7) is placed, the expression "previous approval" would include a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, indicated by the Union Government. It has to be remembered that Art. 309 of the Constitution gives, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, full powers to a State Government to make rules. The proviso to S. 115 (7) limits that power, but trial limitation is removable by the Central Government by giving its previous approval. In this context, we think that could not have been the intention of Parliament that Service Rules made by States would be scrutinised in the minutest detail by the Central Government. Conditions vary from State to State and the details must be filled by each State according to its requirements. The broad purpose underlying the proviso to S. 115 (7) of the Act was to ensure that the conditions of service should not be changed except with the prior approval of the Central Government. In other words, before embarking on varying the conditions of service, the State Governments should obtain, the concurrence of the Central Government. In the memorandum, mentioned above, the Central Government, after examining various aspects, came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline, control classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion. In our opinion, this amounted to previous approval within the proviso to Section 115 (7). It may be mentioned that by this memorandum the State Governments were required to send copies of all new rules to the Central Government for its information. Therefore, in our opinion there is no force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and we hold that the rules were validly made.There are two preliminary hurdles in the way of the petitioner regarding the second point taken on his behalf. Firstly, the State of Madras has not been made a party to this petition. Secondly, he never raised these points while he was serving under the State of Madras. It is difficult at this Stage to challenge orders, which if quashed, would affect the rights of other civil servants who are not parties to this petition. At any rate, the petitioner has not been able to show how Art. 16 was infringed before he was allotted to the new Mysore State. The State in its reply has asserted that all the orders complained against were passed by competent authorities, after considering the merits of the petitioner on each occasion. It was for the competent authorities to judge the merits of the petitioner. We find no force in this contention and hold that no infringement of Art. 16 has been established.