B. N. NAGARAJAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 03-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
 
• 
• 
.. • 
• 
• . 
I 
• 
'·~ 
• 
l 
.. :' 
D37 
•.: 
B. N. NAGARAJAN AND ORS. 
v. 
'···· 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. 
May 3, 1959 
{\>'. R. KRISHNA !YER, P. S. KAILASAM AND A:. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J 
Mysore Government Servants (Seniority) Rules 1957 Rule 2 rf:ad H'ith Rule 
2 ~f, th.e Mysore Government Servants (Probation) Rules \957-Scnpe of . 
··co-,,,m.itution of India, Art. 226-Whether the scope of the fVrit Petition be 
limited to the prayer portion alone? 
In the new State of Mysore (Now Karnatalro:) which came into existence on 
€ 
1-ll-56 as a result of integration of the areas which formed part of cr~twhile 
States of M:ysore, Madras, Coorg, Bomb<tf and Hyderabad, the Government on 
6-2-58, 7-2-58 and 2-12-60 respectively promulgated the following Ru!es 
(a\
1 
. fn~riled uv-der Article 309 of the Constitution) namely, "The ~fySore Govern· 
ment Servants (Probation) Rules 1957, "The 
Mysore 
Government Servanh; 
(Sea_iority) Rules 1957 and "The Mysore Public Works Engineering Departn1ent 
Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1960" The recruitment.Rules envisaged 3ppoint.. 
D 
ment of Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Departn1ent by direct recruit-
ment to the extent of 40% and by promotion for the rest viz. 
50% fron1 the 
cadre of JuiJ.ior Engineers and 10% from the cadre of supervisors. T'he .~dre 
of Assistant Engineers was to consist of 344 permanent and 345 temporary posts. 
Prior to 1-11-56 in the merged Stt:t·tes, there was a non gazetted class designat-
ed a~ graduate supervisors in Mysore State, as Junior Engineers in the Madras 
State and as supervisors in the States of Bombay and Hyderabad. The claim 
of the 
graduate supervisors 
who 
were 
given 
charge 
of sub·divisions 
prior 
to 
1-11-56 
and 
continued 
to 
hold 
the 
san1e 
eyen 
thereafter. 
for equation of their posts with those of Assistant Engineers, was rejected by 
the Central Government. However, on 15-11-58. 167 of them (including 107 
graduate supervisors from Mysore) and between the period 2nd Dec. 1958 and 
13th October '60, 299 more persons of the same class were promoted as officiat· 
ing Assistant Engineers. With reference to three notifications of the Mysore 
Public Service Commission dt. 1-10-58, 4-5-59 and 1-4-61, eighty eight candidates 
were appointed on 31st Oct.' 61i i.e. 8 days after the amendment of the Recruit-
ment Rules giving them retrospective effect from 1st March 1958, as Probationary 
Assistant E.ngineers by direct recruitment. The challenge to their appointment 
was ultimately rejected by this Court in B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore & 
Ors., [1966] 3 S.C.R. 'I>· 682 holding thltt their appointment although made 
after the Recruitment Rules had come is.to force, were valid, as the process of 
direct recruitment had been set in motion by the State Government in exercise 
of its executive power under Article 
162 of the 
Constitution of India well 
before the Recruitment Rules were promulgated and that ilese appointments 
were therefore, "outside the Recruitment Rules". 
E 
F 
G 
In the year 1971 various orders were passed promoting some of the direct 
II 
r~9ruits- to the posts of Executive Engineers and those orders 'R1ere challenged by 
4-409 SCI /79 
A 
B 
c 
D 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979) 3 S,C.R. 
the promotees on' the ground th;lt they had been given promotions "on regular 
basis" which amounted to substantive appOintments and that therefore they 
should rank senior to the direct recruits. Subsequent to the issue on 4.9.73 of 
a- revised seniority list superseding the list (G) prepared on 28·9·72 fM.rther 
writ petitions were filed by the promotees. AU the petitions were heard together 
by the High Court and allowed with the following directions : 
(i) Promotees other than those covered by direction (ii) and direct recruits, 
would not be governed by the quota system as envisaged in the Recruitment 
Rules. 
(ii) Prornotees who were appointed to posts of Assistant Engineers 
with 
effect from Ist of }.larch 1958, or later dates, would be governed by the quota 
system as envisaged in the Recruitment Rules. 
(iii) Promotees appointed as Assistant Engineers prior to 31st October 1961 
would rank senior to the direct recruits whose appointments \Vere made on that 
date. 
(iv) The claim of each of the promotees to the next higher post shall be con-
sidered with effect from a day prior to that on which. any officer found junior 
to him was promoted 
Allowilig the appeals by special leavei the Cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.