Case: Vasant Krishnarao Paturkar &amp; Anr Vs. D. R. Majramkar &amp; Others

That matter is still pending in the Nagpur Bench. The respondents 1 to 19 were impleaded as respondents in that application and although they had been served, they did not file any return when the said application came up for hearing at Nagpur on 2nd February, 1972. The learned Government Advocate, however, mentioned to the Court that another petition on the same subject had already been decided by the Bombay High Court. It is said that this was the first time when the appellants came to know of the impugned judgment and took immediate steps in the Bombay High Court to set aside the order and for rehearing the writ petition, but failed to obtain favourable orders.7. The problem is indeed ticklish and sensitive concerning integration, absorption, gradation and fixation of appropriate seniority of the officers throwing by act of the State their common lot from different areas, namely, the former State of Madhya Pradesh, former State of Hyderabad and the former State of Bombay allotted to the new bilingual State of Bombay under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. It is, however, clear that there is sufficient guideline in Part X of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 as also later in Part VIII of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 and it is reserved for the Government of India, advisedly, to be the final authority in the matter of division and integration of services among the new States to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the reorganisation including proper consideration of any representation made by concerned persons. (See Section 115 and Section 117 of the Act and Secs. 81 and 83 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960).8. It is well settled that the Central Government under Section 115 of the Act has to determine the principles governing equation of posts and prepare common gradation lists by integration of services and in doing so to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all persons concerned. The Central Government is also required to give opportunities to the parties affected to make their representations.(See D. Rajiah Raj v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 457 = (1973) 1 SCC 61 = (1973 Lab IC 84); N. Subba Rao v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 862 = (AIR 1973 SC 69 = 1974 Lab IC 240) and Union of India v. P. K. Roy, (1968) 2 SCR 186 = (AIR 1968 SC 850 ).9. The High Court cannot clothe upon itself the authority for performing the functions which are specifically and expressly intended to be the obligation and duty of the Central Government under the Act. The High Court is, therefore, not right in two matters, namely, in directing the State Government to do that which under the provisions of the Act is within the domain of the Central Government and secondly in fixing a time limit for action and, if the same is exceeded, directing an automatic entitlement to the second relief as to equation, absorption and fixation of seniority as prayed for by respondents 1 to 19. This view of the High Court is clearly erroneous in view of the provisions of the Act.10. That, however, does not dispose of this matter. Mr. Phadke, learned counsel for the appellants, raises several questions before us. Firstly, that the Division Bench of the High Court could not sit in appeal against the Division Bench decision of the Nagpur Bench which is binding on the respondents 1 to 19. Secondly, that there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice in disposing of the writ petition by the High Court, ex parte, and in not reviewing its order when sufficient cause was shown by the appellants herein. Thirdly, that the High Court should not have allowed the application under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, and should have insisted upon personal service of the rule nisi on the affected petitioners in a service matter of such implications.11. Mr. Bhandare, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, also, inter alia took the point that the Central Government was a necessary party and the petition should have been dismissed by the High Court for non-joinder of that Government.12. It is not necessary for us to go into these questions in view of the High Courts order of December 24, 1971, in Civil Application No. 3261 of 1971, of the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Agriculture praying for permission to file an affidavit in reply to the writ petition and for contesting the petition on merits. The High Court observed "we are satisfied on reading these affidavits that there was sufficient cause for rehearing the Special Civil Application", but on perusal of the affidavit in reply and hearing counsel for the State rejected the said petition. The High Court also dismissed the petitioners application for rehearing the writ application.13. We are not satisfied that the High Court was right in not allowing an opportunity to the petitioners as well as to the State to canvass their respective points of view before it against the writ application, particularly so when the matter had been heard in a representative writ application and not one of the actually affected persons had been impleaded as a respondent even to represent their category. The High Court itself observed, as noticed above, "there was sufficient cause of rehearing". Without, therefore, going into the various points raised before us, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court of 9th December, 1971 and direct restoration of the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970 to its file for disposal of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. We further direct that respondents 1 to 19 shall take steps in the High Court to impleaded the Central Government as well as the present appellants and all other officers affected by the orders sought to be quashed in the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. It is well settled that the Central Government under Section 115 of the Act has to determine the principles governing equation of posts and prepare common gradation lists by integration of services and in doing so to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all persons concerned. The Central Government is also required to give opportunities to the parties affected to make theirThe High Court cannot clothe upon itself the authority for performing the functions which are specifically and expressly intended to be the obligation and duty of the Central Government under the Act. The High Court is, therefore, not right in two matters, namely, in directing the State Government to do that which under the provisions of the Act is within the domain of the Central Government and secondly in fixing a time limit for action and, if the same is exceeded, directing an automatic entitlement to the second relief as to equation, absorption and fixation of seniority as prayed for by respondents 1 to 19. This view of the High Court is clearly erroneous in view of the provisions of the Act.We are not satisfied that the High Court was right in not allowing an opportunity to the petitioners as well as to the State to canvass their respective points of view before it against the writ application, particularly so when the matter had been heard in a representative writ application and not one of the actually affected persons had been impleaded as a respondent even to represent their category. The High Court itself observed, as noticed above, "there was sufficient cause of rehearing". Without, therefore, going into the various points raised before us, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court of 9th December, 1971 and direct restoration of the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970 to its file for disposal of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. We further direct that respondents 1 to 19 shall take steps in the High Court to impleaded the Central Government as well as the present appellants and all other officers affected by the orders sought to be quashed in the Special Civil Application No. 1354 ofis, however, clear that there is sufficient guideline in Part X ofthe States Reorganisation Act, 1956 as also later in Part VIII ofthe Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 and it is reserved for the Government of India, advisedly, to be the final authority in the matter of division and integration of services among the new States to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the reorganisation including proper consideration of any representation made by concerned persons. (See Section 115 and Section 117 of the Act and Secs. 81 and 83 ofthe Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960).It is not necessary for us to go into these questions in view of the High Courts order of December 24, 1971, in Civil Application No. 3261 of 1971, of the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Agriculture praying for permission to file an affidavit in reply to the writ petition and for contesting the petition on merits. The High Court observed "we are satisfied on reading these affidavits that there was sufficient cause for rehearing the Special Civil Application", but on perusal of the affidavit in reply and hearing counsel for the State rejected the said petition. The High Court also dismissed the petitioners application for rehearing the writ application.13.We are not satisfied that the High Court was right in not allowing an opportunity to the petitioners as well as to the State to canvass their respective points of view before it against the writ application, particularly so when the matter had been heard in a representative writ application and not one of the actually affected persons had been impleaded as a respondent even to represent their category. The High Court itself observed, as noticed above, "there was sufficient cause of rehearing". Without, therefore, going into the various points raised before us, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court of 9th December, 1971 and direct restoration of the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970 to its file for disposal of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. We further direct that respondents 1 to 19 shall take steps in the High Court to impleaded the Central Government as well as the present appellants and all other officers affected by the orders sought to be quashed in the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of