N. RAGHAVENDRA RAO versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOUTH KANARA, MANGALORE

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 31-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
549 
N .. RAGHA VENDRA RAO 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. SOUTH KANARA, 
MAN GALORE 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, N. 
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.) 
Fundamental Rights-Conditions of se-rvice changed by 
the State Government without the previous approval of the 
Central Government-Loss of benefit of service and incre-
ments-"Previous 
approval"-Meaning 
of-Mysore Generat 
Services Recruitment Rules, 1959----States Reorganisation Act 
1956 (37 of 1956), s. 115(7)-Constitution of India, Arts. 16 and 
311(2). 
The petitioner was selected as a Lower Division Clerk 
under the Madras Ministerial Service Rules in 1949, and was 
posted in South Kanara District. He was promoted as upper 
division clerk on April 2, 1956 and according to him, he should 
have. teen promoted much earlier. According to the State, 
the petitioner was considered for inclusion in the eligibility 
list from 1955 onwards, but was not selected as he was not 
considered fit. The State admitted that he was promoted as 
Upper Division clerk w>ith effect from April 2, 1956, but alleged 
that this was on a temporary basis. He was later reverted 
and then again posted as temporary Upper Division clerk. In 
August, 1957, the petitioner was considered and included in 
the eligibility list at serial No. 14. This list was regularised 
on December 12, 1957, in accordance with Madras State and 
Subordinate Service Rules, with effect from October 19, 1957. 
According to the petitioner this resulted in the loss of benefit 
of service and increments. 
In the meantime, reorganisation 
of States took place under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 
and S-Outh Kanara District went to the new Myoore and the 
petitioner was allotted to it. On May 11, 1957, the Government 
of India addressed a memorandum to all State Governments 
and in respect of departmental promotion it said that "the 
question whether any protection should be given in respect of 
rules and conditions applicable to Government Servants 
affected by reorganisation immediately before the date of 
reorganisation in the matter of tra'/elling allowance, discipline, 
control, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and depart-
mental promotion was also . considered. The Government of 
India agree with the view expressed on behalf of the State res-
presentatives that it would not be ap"ropriate to provide for 
any protection in the matter of these conditions. It was urged 
on behalf of the petitioner (i) that the Mysore General Services 
Recruitment Rules, 1959, were not made with the previous 
approval of the Central Government under s. 115(7) of the 
States Re-organisation Act, and, therefore, do not govern the 
petitioner in so far as the conditions of. service have teen 
varied to his disadvantage and (ii) that the Madras Govern-
ment had, prior to November 1, 1956, by varoius orders, reduced 
the petitioner in rank in violation of Art. 311(2) of the Consti-
tutii>n and Art. 16. 
1964 
Mareh31 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19C4] 
1964 
He!d: (i) In the setting in which the proviso to s. 115(7) of 
N R h 
d 
R the Act is placed, the expression "previous approval" would in-
• ag a;en ra 
ao elude a general approval to the variation in the conditions of 
Deputy oo:nmisioner service ~Nithin certain limits, indicated by the Union Govern-
Bouth Kanara Man'. ment. Art. 309 of the Constitution gives, subject to the provi-
galore ' 
sions of the Constitution, full powers to a State Government to 
make rules. The proviso to s.115(7) of the Act limits that 
power, but that limitation is removable by the Central Govern-
ment by giving its previous approval. The broad purpose 
:mderlying the proviso to s. 115(7) of the Act was to ensure 
that the conditions of service. should not be changed except 
with the prior approval of the Central Government. In the 
memorandum, the Central Government, 
after examining 
various aspects, came to the conclusion that it would not be 
appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of 
travelling allowance, discipline, control, classification, appeal, 
conduct, probation and departmental promotion. This am-
ounted to previous approval within the proviso to s.115(7). By 
this memorandum the State Governments were required to 
send copies of all new rules to the Central Government for it' 
information. Therefore, it must be held that the rul.es were 
validly made. 
Bikri, J. 
In re Bosworth and COTporation of Gr

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