LexMYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MIRJA KHASIM ALI BEG & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
282 A MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION B c D E F G V• MIRJA KHASIM ALI BEG & ANR. December 1, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C. J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J Serl·ice nzatter-Person employed in one State transferred to another on Slates' /(eorganisation-No post in the new State equivalent to that of appoint. ing authority in the old State-If Government servant could be dismissed by 11n officer lower in rank than the appointing authority. Under s. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, nothing contained' ·in that ,section could, after the appointed day, i.e. November 1, 1956, affect the operation of the provisiOns _of Chapter· I of· Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of conditions of service of persons scrvin.t in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State ... The proviso provides that the condition of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to any person who is allotted to another State could not be varied to his dis- - advantage e:\cept with the previous approval of the Central Government. The respondents, who were bus conductors in the State Road Tran~port Department- of the former State of. Hyderabad. were allotted to the State of Mysore consequent upon the reorganisation of the States in 1956 and they continued to bold the same posts under the 1tfysore Government Road Trans- port Department. They were dismissed from service by the Divisional -Con .. troller of 1!ysore Government Road Transport Department and the order of dismissal was affirmed by the General Manager of the Department. The ord.ers of dismissal were challenged on the ground that since they were appoint- ed by the Superintendent of the Traffic Department of the former State of lfyderabad, who was the Head of that Department they could be dismissed only by the General 1fanager of the 1:1ysore State Road Transpart Depart- ment and that their dismissal by the Divisional Controller, who was not the Head of the Department, was in violation of the right guaranteed under Art. 311 of the Comtitution. The Jligb Court struck down the order of dismissal. On appeal by the State it was contended that (1) since the post of Super· intendent of Traffic Department did not exist in the State of ~fysore and the Divisional Contro11er was the competent authority to appoint and dis- miss servant<; m the category -to which the respondents belonged, their dis· missal was not incompetent in view of s. 116(2) of the States Reorganisation _Act, -1956; (2) There was substantial compliance with Art. 311 · becau>e ~he order· of dismissal was confirmed by the General Manager; (3) Since the posts were not civil posts under the State, there was no violation of Art. 311; ( 4) The discr~tionary relief of declaration of continuance- in .service could not have been granted in this case; and (5) the respandents were dismissed before the establishment of the Corporation and since they did not exercise their option to join the Corparation, no decree could be passed against the Corpo· ration. Dismissing the ·appeals, HEID : The respondents could not have been dismissed from service· by an authority lower or subordinate in rank to the General ~tanager of the Trans· port Department as it would tantamount to deprivation of the guarantee in Art. 311 of the Constitution read with s 115(7) of the State Reorganic;;ation Act. That there was no post of Superintendent of Traffic under the 1-f}'S'Jre Ciovemment Road Transport Department is of !10 consequence. (291 FJ l I ·- .. ·-"- .t • '- ..... --;.---------~ MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT v. M. K. BEG (Jaswant Singh, !.) 283 1 (a) The protection enjoyed by persons holding civil posts under the State like the respondents prior to the coming into force of the Act could •not after the appointed day, be taken away, whittled down or impaired by any legislative enactment or rule. The broad purpose underlying .the section was to ensure that the conditions of service of persons mentioned therein shall not be changed exce2t with the prior approval of the Central Govt. [288 E; BJ (b) The expression 'condition of service' is an expression of wide import and the dismissal from service is a matter which falls within the conditions of service of public servants. It is not possible by means of any legisla1ive provision or rule to take away the guarantee provided by Art. 311 (I) and if any legislative provision or rule lays down othe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.