RAJVI AMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 28-11-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1015 
(supra), there was a decree, and the requirements of 
s. 205 were satisfied. Here, there is only a finding on 
a preliminary issue, and there is no decree or final 
order. The Explanation to Art. 132 provides that : 
"For the purposes oi this Article, the expression 
'final order' includes an order deciding an issue which, 
if decided in favour of the appellant, would be suffi-
cient for the final disposal of the case." 
Applying this test, even if we accept the contention of 
the appellant that the impugned Act is bad, that 
would not finally dispose of the suit, as there are other 
issues, which have to be tried. We are clearly of 
opinion that the appeal is not competent under Art. 
132, and the fact that a certificate has been given does 
not alter the position. It is said that the certificate is 
also under Art. 133, but under that article also, an 
appeal lies only against judgments, decrees or final 
orders, and no certificate could be granted in respect 
of an interlocutory finding. 
The result is that this appeal must be dismissed, as 
not maintainable. We should add by way of abun-
dant caution that as we express no opinion on the 
correctness of the decision under appeal, this order 
will not preclude the appellant from claiming such 
rights as he may have, in appropriate proceedings 
which he may take. In the circumstances, there will 
be no order as to costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RAJVI AMAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AtYAR, s. K. DAS, A. 
K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.) 
State Service-Formation of new State by intergration 
of States-Effect-Employee under intergrating State con-
tinuing in service of new State-Status-If can be inferred 
1957 
Sardar 
Syedna T<1lrer 
Saiffuddin Sa/re/,. 
v. 
The State of 
B<mlbay 
Venkataramc 
Aiyar J. 
1957 
Novr1nber, 
::!~J 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1958] 
1957 
from description in orders of transfer and increment of pay 
. . 
. 
-Substantive appointment to a lower grade on guaranteed 
.RaJ" Amar Smgh .emoluments-If amounts to reduction in rank-Constitu-
v. 
tion of India, Art. 311. 
T~ ~·~t• of 
The appellant was a District and Session Judge in the 
01°' an. 
State of Bikaner and after its merger in the new State of 
Rajasthan, on August 7, 1949, continued to serve in the 
new State. The covenant of integration provided, inter 
a!ia, that the conditions of such service were to be no less 
advantageous than those under which he was working on 
November 1, 1948. By a Gazette Notification the appellant 
was appointed as an ad hoc Civil and Additional Sessions 
Judge. After the reorganisation of the Services he was 
substantively appointed as a Civil Judge and placed in 
grade C (Civil Judges and Munsiffs) and placed at No. 18 
in the list of Juniors, but his old pay and emoluments re-
mained as guaranteed. Before such appointment he was, 
however, described in certain orders of transfer and 
increments of pay as District and Sessions Judge. The 
appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Con-
stitution and contended that he had been reduced in rank 
without being afforded an opportunity to show cause 
under Art. 311 of the Constitution. The High Court held 
that the appointment must he treated as an ad hoc appoint-
ment till it was regularised under the Constitution. This 
was done by the Government after the decision of the High 
Court and the appellant was again appointed as a Civil 
Judge: 
Held, that it is well settled that when a State is by 
merger integrated to form a new State, all contracts of 
service between the prior Government and its servants 
automatically came to an end and those who elect to serve 
in the new State, or are taken in by it, serve on such terms 
and conditions as the new State may choose to impose. 
The State of Madras v. K. M. Rajagopalan, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 
541, relied on. 
Virendra Singh & Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 
[1955] 1 S.C.R. 415, referred to. 
' 
As the appellant's postings in the new State previous 
to his substantive appointment were all transitional and 
temporary in character and the guarantee given by the 
convenant was fulfilled, no question of reduction in rank 
arose so as to attract Art. 311 of the Constituti6n. 
No inference of any determination· by the new Govern-
ment to appoint the appellant in his old post could follow 
from the descriptions made in the orders of transfer and 
increments of pay as appointments are not ma

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