LexK. V. RAJALAKSHMIAH SETTY & ANR. versus STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K. V. RAJALAKSHMIAH SETIY & ANR. .\ 1'. STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. November 7, 1966J (K. N. WANCHOO, G. K. MITTER AND C. A. VAIDIAUNGAM, JJ.)j B Conrtitution of India, 1950, Art. 226--Writ of mandamus-Conct.r- .-slons shown by State to some officus-·When could be claimed by oth..rs. In the State of Mysore, before it waa reorgani!ed under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, surveyors who were posted .. omcera io charge .of sub-divisions were promoted aa Assistant Bngioeera. The petitionera ·were placed io charge of sub-divisions between December 1945 and Nov- C ember 19491 and the then Government, by a ootillcation dated 12th December 1949, ordered that their promotions were to take elfect from that date irnspective of the dates oo which they were put in charge of the sub-divisions. But, by a notification dated 17th May 1950, the Oovem- melll showed a concession to a different batch of 41 surveyon, who bad been placed io charge of different sub-divisions between March 1944 and January 1946, by promoting them aa As•istant Bngintera, with effect from the dates of occurrence of vacancies, according to oeniority. Io November D 1958, another batch of 107 peraons were promoted as Assistant Engineen .and they also were shown a concession by giving their appointmenl.9 retrospective effect from !st November, 1956, when the new State of Mysore emerged under the States Reorganisation Act. The petitioners filed a writ petition io the High Coun, io 1964, contend- ing that there was nothing io the service rules which preventd the Gov- ernment from granting such concessions to the petitioners also, aod for E the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to llx their seniority also, oo the basis that they had become Assistant Eogioeen from the dates <>n which the vacancies to which they bad been posted uad occurred. The petition was dismissed. Oo appeal to this Court, HELD : (a) The concessions shown to the batch of 41 persons who bad been appointed before the petitioners and to the batch of I 07 penons who had been appointed thereafter, were mere ad hoc concessions and not "Something which they could claim as of riflht. The Coun, tl>erefore, -could not issue a writ of maudamus commanding the State to show such a concession or other indulgence to the petitioners because, there waa no service rule which the State had transgressed, nor bad the State evolved 'Boy principle to be followed in respect of penoos who were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers from surveyors. [75 H-76 BJ (~) The petitiooen, not having filed the petition within a reaS<'oable time after 17th May 1950 were guilty of !aches, and were not entitled to any relief. 176 11-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2174 and 2175 of 1966. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 30, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions NOS. 1745 and 1779 of 1964. F G H RAJALAKSHMIAH SETTY v. MYSORE (Mitter, J.) 71 A S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and R. B. Dattar, for the appellants. B. R. L. Iyengar, S. S. Javali and S. F. Nayar, for the respon- dents. B, P. Singh and R. B. Dater, for the interveners. B The Jm~gment of the Court was delivered by c D E G H Mitter, J. These are two appeals from a common judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore covering a number of Writ Petitions filed in that Court on special leave granted ty this Court. The appellants are two out of a total number of 43 persons who filed separate petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Mysore High Court on October I, 1964. The main . prayer in all the petitions was that a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the State of Mysore to promote each peti- tioner to the cadre of Assistant Engineers from the date on which the petitioner was placed in charge of a sub-division with all conse- quential benefits. To put in short, the demand of the petitioners was that they should all receive benefits which others p~omoted before and after them had received. According to the petitions, some of these persons had received such benefits before the peti- tioners and some had been accorded similar advantages although they were promoted as Assistant Engineers Jong after the peti- tioners, but the State of Mysore had, without any reason, jeciined to give similar benefits to the petitioners. The facts as they emerge from the affidavits and the docu- ments referred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.