C. P. DAMODARAN NAYAR AND P. S. MENON versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 20-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

8 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
C. P. DAMODARAN NAYAR AND P. S. MENON 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS 
December 20, 1973 
[P. JAGANMOH,AN REDDY AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
867 
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Ss. 115 !lnd 
117-Madras State judicial 
Service Rules, 1953; r. 11-Appl{cabiliry !o officers allotted to Kera{a-Seniurity 
according to decision of Central Govcrn111e11t-Right of :staff Government. to 
co11stitute new cadres-'KLM' principle and its scope. 
. 
Under s. 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Central Govern-
ment may·establish one or more Advisory Committees·for the purpose of assisting 
it in regard- to, (a) the division and integration .of services among the new States, 
·-and (b} the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected. 
Under s. 177 the Centrar Government may give stich d.irections to any such State 
Government as may appear to be necessary for the- purpose of giving effect to the 
provisions of the Act and the State Government shall comply with suc_h directions. 
Accordingly, a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the various States that ·were to 
·be effected by the reorganis.ation was held in May, 1956, at the-invitation of the 
Central Government, and certain dec1s1ons were taken as to the general principles 
that should be observed with regard to the integration work 
The Central Gov-
.ernment thereafter informed the State Governments that they had decided that the 
-Wllrk of integration of services, equation ot' Posts and relative seniority should he 
dealt with by the State Governments in the Ught of those general principles. In 
1962, the Central Government, after considering the representatious of t"!\e Officers 
-made under s. 115(5) of the· Act; in modificatton'of the .earlier pri,1ciplc· excluding 
pe_riods for which an appointment is held as:.a purelyi!)top __ g~p qr. _foi:tttltous 
arrangement in fixing seniority, decided that the officers allocated to Kerala State 
from the former Madras State may be allowed benefit of emergency servi~,. f!J· 
wards seniority in the equated category if such service would have been re8ulans.. 
ed from the date of their emergency appointment and counted for seniority in 
Madras, on Ist November, 1956, had those officers~remained in Madras. The 
respondent-State acceptr-d this decision of th£ Central Government. 
The appellant was selected as a District Munsiff by the Madras Public Service 
Commission and was posted as such on May 26. 1951. and he has been in con• 
tinuous service since then. 
Consequent upon a decision of the Supreme Court of 
Jndia, the Madras State Judicial Service Rules (Madras Rules) were framed in 
1953, but were given retrospective effect from March 1951, and the service of the 
appeUant and~ others was regularised as from October 6, 
1951. The State of 
Kerala came into being on November 1, 1956, and the appellant Was finally allotted 
Kerala with effect from October 24, 1956. On March 26, 1966, the respondent-
State published the final integrated list of the Travancore-Cochin and Madras 
personnel of the Judicial Officers as on November 1, 1956, showing respondents 
6 and 7, whose dates of commencement of continuous service were July 20, 1951, 
and October 1. 1951, respectively, as senior to the appellant, on the basis that 
October 6, 1951, was assigned to him as the date of commencement of his con-
tinous service being the date of his appointment to the post i11 the equated cate-
gory as on November 1, 1956. The respondent-State, on October 20, 1959, also 
provided that some posts of District and Sub--divisional Magistrate of 'executive 
ori_gin' ~·o~]d be constit~ted as a separate service outside the civil judiciary, while 
being eh,g1ble for appointment as subordinale judgos and MunSiffs respectively. 
'The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning inter aUa ( 1) the 
rank and place of seniority given to him in the final Jist on the gronnd that. the 
date of commencemen1 of his continuous service is May 26, 1951; and (2) the 
or~t:r of the respondent-State providing a special cadre for magistrates of executive 
or1g1n, ·on th~ ground that, if that order was implemented there was the likelihood 
.of su~ivisional Magistrates securing promotion over munsiffs with-longer service. 
The High Court dismissed the petition. 
· 
' 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1974] 2 s.c.R. 
In appeal to this Court, 
A 
HEW : ! I) (a) Rule 11 of the M;adras Rules deals with temporary appoint· 
nients. B

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