B.R. RAMABHADRIAH versus SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 30-07-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
i 
't 
\ 
159 
B.R. RAMABHADRIAH 
v. 
SECRETARY, FOOD & AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT 
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
July 30, 1981 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.J 
Constitution India 1950, Art. 226-Relief under-Court whet her.~competent to 
take note of changed circumstances and grant smaller relief than claimed in writ 
petition. 
The appellant, an officer of the Forest Depertment challenged the provi .. 
sional integrated gradation list of Forest Officers of the former Andhra and 
Hyderabad States published under the provisions of the States Reorganisation 
Act, 1947, in his writ petition, contending that (a) the inter-se seniority between 
the appellant and the 6th respondent, both of whom originally belonged to the 
Andhra Cadre, had been wrongly fixed by showing the 6th respondent as senior 
to the appellant whereas the appellant was legally entitled to seniority over the 
6th respondent, and (b) that respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 officers allotted 
to the State of Andhra Pradesh from the Telengana region of the former 
Hyderabad :state, had been erroneously assigned ranks above the appellant in 
violation of the principles laid down by the Government of India for equation 
of posts and :fixation of inter-se seniority. 
During the pendency of the writ petition the Central Government set right the 
appellant's grievance concerning his ranking and seniority in relation to respon· 
dents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. When the writ petition came up for hearing the appellant 
pressed only his claim for seniority over the 6th respondent and as the contention 
was well founded, the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and issued 
a writ of mandamu~ directing the Government of India to modify the gradation 
list by showing the appellant as senior to the 6th respondent. 
In the appeal to the Division Bench by the- 6th respondent, the Division. 
Bench took the view that since the prayer contained in the writ the petition was 
for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents nos. 1 and 2 to for-
bear from implementing the provisional gradation list published alongwith the 
Government Order dated January 27, 1962 and as the appellant had not pressed 
the prayer for quashing of the list in so far as it related to the officers of Telen-
gana region viz. respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the writ petition should have been 
dismissed on that short ground and the question relating to the inter-se 
seniority between the appellant and the 6th respondent ought not to have been 
decided. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order passed 
by the sin&le Judge and dismissed the writ petition. 
Allowin& tbe appeal to this Court, 
A 
B 
a 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] J S.C.R. 
HELD : In an action where a party has prayed for a larger relief it is 
always open to the Court to grant him any smaller relief that he may be found 
to be entitled to in law and thereby render substantial justice. The Court can 
take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted 
to the party concerned in order to met~ out justice. As far as possible the anxiety 
and endeavour of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is brought 
to its notice rather than deny relief to an aggrieved party on purely technical ar.d 
narrow procedural grounds. [162 G-163 A] 
In the instant case the writ petition contain~d the prayer for the quashing 
of the gradation list in so far as it related to the inter-se ranking of the appellant 
vis·a-vis respondents nos. 3 to 8 and the appellant had also sought the issuance 
of a writ of mandamus directing respondents nos. I and 2 to forbear from imple-
menting or acting upon the said gradation list. Subsequent to the institution of 
the writ petition the Central Government had refixed the ranks of respondents 
nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 and placed them below the appellant thereby redressing the 
grievance of the appellant in so far as it pertained to rhe ranking of the said 
respondents. It, therefore, became unnecessary for the appellant to pursue his 
claim for relief with respect to the ranks assigned to those five respondents. It 
was under those circumstances that the appellant submitted before the single 
Judge at the time of final hearing of the writ petition that he was pressing the 
writ petition only in so far as it related to his claim for seniority over the 6th 
respondent. This will not operate to preclude him f

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