Case: K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Mysore And Anr

on which they had taken charge would result in some junior officers being ranked above some senior persons and it was for this reason that Government had ordered the promotion of these 63 persons to take effect from the date of notification irrespective of the dates from which they were put in charge of the sub-divisions. It was also said that the promotion of this batch was subject to the condition that they should be ranked in the order of seniority as per gradation list that obtained just before promotion. This state of affairs continued right up to the date of Reorganisation of the State in November 1956. The affidavit goes on to state that:".... in view of the Re-organisation of the State . .. and the statutory recognition of the position of several officers as on 31-10-1956 it was no longer open to the new Mysore Government to re-open the issue settled in 1949." With regard to the batch of 107 persons it was said that Government had ordered their promotion only from November 1, 1956 and it was not competent to order the same from an earlier date. In regard to the two batches of 32 surveyors and 124 surveyors promoted in 1963 it was said that they were all in charge of sub-divisions from the dates subsequent to November 1, 1956 and there was no difficulty in promoting them from the dates on which they had assumed charge of sub-divisions. According to the State as:".... . these incidents occurred after the Reorganisation and the formation of a new State, the new State of Mysore was perfectly justified in giving effect to their promotions accordingly." 8. With regard to the 63 persons the point of view of the State of Mysore is that the new State which emerged after the Reorganisation of States in 1956 was not competent to interfere with the state of affairs prior to 1-11-1956 and Government had no power to re-open their cases. 9. According to Mr. Iyengar who appeared for the State, assuming that law included executive directions for the purpose of Art. 14 of the Constitution, we have to see: (a) whether there is a rude which has been unevenly applied as among equals; (b) if a principle has been evolved whether it has been unevenly applied and (c) whether there has been an equal treatment in applying executive orders. 10. Mr. Iyengar argued that there was no rule which had been violated in this case nor any principle had been evolved which could be said to have been unevenly applied nor was there any executive order which has been given effect to in different ways in different cases. Mr. Iyengars second submission was that if the 63 persons were to be fixed in the cadre with respect to the dates on which they were first put in charge of sub-divisions the seniority list with regard to the whole cadre of engineers would have to be altered thus affecting persons who are not before us and who would be condemned unheard. His third submission was that giving effect to the contention of the appellants would be projecting Art. 14 to a date before the Constitution came into force and this could not be allowed. He also argued that the appellants had been guilty of laches in making their applications in 1964 when they were really complaining of an order which had been passed as far back as May 17 1950. It was contended that the appellants had been able to give no explanation as to why they did not apply in between the date of the impugned order and the 1st of November 1956 when the Reorganisation of States became effective. 11. Mr. Iyengar further contended that in reality a concession had been shown to some persons and the petitioner-appellants had no legal right to claim such concession. He also argued that giving effect to the contention of the petitioners would be going against S. 115 sub-s. (7) of the States Reorganisation Act 1956. 12. There is some force in some of the contentions put forward on behalf of the State of Mysore. It is not necessary to test them as we find ourselves unable to uphold the contention of the appellants. No doubt some concession had been shown to the first batch of 41 persons and the batches of persons who had come in after the batch of 63 persons also received some concession but after all these were concessions and not something which they could claim as of right. The State of Mysore might have shown some indulgence to this batch of 63 persons but we cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding it to do so. There was no service rule which the State had transgressed nor has the State evolved any principle to be followed in respect of persons who were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers from surveyors. The indulgence shown to the different batches of persons were really ad hoc and we are not in a position to say what, if any, adhoc indulgence should be meted out to the appellants before us. 13. There is also a good dead of force behind the contention that the appellants are guilty of laches. After the passing of the order of May 17, 1950, they should have made an application within a reasonable time thereafter. Merely because the Chief Engineer had espoused their cause and was writing letters from time to time to the State Government to do something for them did not mean that they could rest upon their oars if they were really being discriminated against. As we cannot hold that the appellants were entitled to any particular indulgence or concession, the only way of meting out equality to all surveyors who had been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers would be to say that promotions should in all cases be effective from the date of the notification. This is obviously beyond our powers.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]12. There is some force in some of the contentions put forward on behalf of the State of Mysore. It is not necessary to test them as we find ourselves unable to uphold the contention of the appellants. No doubt some concession had been shown to the first batch of 41 persons and the batches of persons who had come in after the batch of 63 persons also received some concession but after all these were concessions and not something which they could claim as of right. The State of Mysore might have shown some indulgence to this batch of 63 persons but we cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding it to do so. There was no service rule which the State had transgressed nor has the State evolved any principle to be followed in respect of persons who were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers from surveyors. The indulgence shown to the different batches of persons were really ad hoc and we are not in a position to say what, if any, adhoc indulgence should be meted out to the appellants before us13. There is also a good dead of force behind the contention that the appellants are guilty of laches. After the passing of the order of May 17, 1950, they should have made an application within a reasonable time thereafter. Merely because the Chief Engineer had espoused their cause and was writing letters from time to time to the State Government to do something for them did not mean that they could rest upon their oars if they were really being discriminated against. As we cannot hold that the appellants were entitled to any particular indulgence or concession, the only way of meting out equality to all surveyors who had been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers would be to say that promotions should in all cases be effective from the date of the notification. This is obviously beyond our powers8. With regard to the 63 persons the point of view of the State of Mysore is that the new State which emerged after the Reorganisation of States in 1956 was not competent to interfere with the state of affairs prior to6 and Government had no power ton their cases13. There is also a good dead of force behind the contention that the appellants are guilty of laches. After the passing of the order of May 17, 1950, they should have made an application within a reasonable time thereafter. Merely because the Chief Engineer had espoused their cause and was writing letters from time to time to the State Government to do something for them did not mean that they could rest upon their oars if they were really being discriminated against. As we cannot hold that the appellants were entitled to any particular indulgence or concession, the only way of meting out equality to all surveyors who had been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers would be to say that promotions should in all cases be effective from the date of the notification. This is obviously beyond our