RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 12-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

216 
RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR DEODHAR & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
November, 12, 1973 
[A. N. RAY, CJ., D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. 
BHAGWATi AND V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.] 
Co11stitu1ion of India, 1950, An. 
32.-Laches, alternative 
remedy 
nnd 
HCC£'SS!lf)' r-artt'es. 
States .Rtor1:a11isatinn Act. t 956-Slale of Bombas_;_Rule.f for _ promolion 
fro111 dh·isio11al cadre of Man1latdars to State 
Cadre of Deputy Collectors·-
1\'01 
1nad~ ri11 S1ate·wide basis-Vtilidit). 
The petitioners ·were Tahsildars in the quondam state of Hyderabad. After 
the new state of Bombay was constituted with territories drawn fron1 varicu, 
existing States including Hyderabad, under the States Rcorp.nisatJon Act, 1956, 
equation of posts and determination of inter se seniority was 
done by 
the 
.,-\!located Government Servants' (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowance) 
Rules, 1957. Under these rules ( 1957-Rules) the Governn1ent of Bombav dec-
lared that lh.: posts of Mamlatdar in the former State of Bombay shall 
be 
Jcen1ed to be equivalent to the posts of Tahsildars from the former State of 
Hyderabad, and the posts of Deputy Collector in the former State of 'Bombay 
~hall be deemed to be equivalent to the posts of Deputy Collector allocated 
from the forn1er State of Hyderabad. The recruitment to the posts of Deputy 
Collector was provided for by Rules of 30th July, 1959, (1959-Rules) accord-
ing to \\ihich v.-:cancies to the posts of Deputy Collector were to be filled from 
three sources : 50% by nomination on the basis of the result of competitive 
examination; 25% by directly re9ruited Mamlatdars who have put in at least ·7 
yearci' service including the period spent on probation and the remaining 25% 
bv Mamlatdars promoted from lhe lower ranks in Lhe revenue 
departmc11ts. 
The reservation. of 25% in favour of directly recruited Mamlatdars waci made 
by the second proviso to rule (1) of the Rules. 
On 7th April, 
1961 
the 
Government laid ·down the principles for regulating the preparation and revi-
sion of select list of Mamlatdars/Tahsildars fit to b: appointed 
as 
Deputy 
Collectors in posts to· be filled by promotion. The procedure provided that a 
Review Con1n1ittee should in July-August each year review the claims of all 
:\famh:ld<!rs for promotion to the posts of Deputy Collector and should draw 
up a select liSt for each division of those who arc considered by the Com-
mittee as fit for promotion. When a vacancy arose in the oosts of Dep11tv 
Coliec~or in a division the .Mamlatdar whose name was highest in the divi-
c:ional select list was promoted as officiating Deputy Collector in the 
var.ant 
post. 
Th;:: name of such Mamlatdars though. so promoted, continued in the 
divi~ionnl select list until he was confirmed in the cadre of Deputy Collectors 
or retired from service. There was a l)eriodical review of the working of the 
officiating ckpnty coBectors and on such review the rank in the divisional select 
J!c;t_ was adiu<.tcr.I so as to reflect the assessment of the relative merits of the 
officiatin,g deputy collectors. 
The promotions a<J officiating deputy collectors 
were thus made for each division separately on the basis of its divisional select 
list in which the rankin.2 changed periodically as a n:sult of sevicw and assel'l<>.-
ment. 
Then. deemed dates of continuous officiation were given to the offi-
ciating dcputv collectors from each division with a view to ~nsure that their 
inter 
-~e ranking- in the divisional select list was not affected bv the fact that 
nn C'lffi:ccr k"iwer in rank in the divisional select list miiz:ht have been officiating 
:i" Deputy Collector for a longer period than another in higher tank. On the 
basis of thie deemed dates of continuou~ officiation given to 
the 
Officiating 
Deouty Collector in each division a combined statewise seniority list of cffi-
ciatin_'! D<·puty Collectors was nrepared and 
confirmation in 
th~ cadre 
of 
Denul'.' Collectors were made in acc0rdance with the seniority in such com-
tiinE'd s!ritewi<.:e seniority list. This procedure did not have the warrant of any 
leg:i~l:iliv~ rules or administrative''orders. It waci in accordance with this pro-
cedu~e 1hat the petitioners were promoted as officiating Deputy Collectors but 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
~ 
• 
"°Y 
• 
~ .. 
' • 
• 
· R. S. DEODHAR V. MAHARAsHTRA 
' ' 
' 
217 
A 
s~1me of the aIIocated .Afamlatdars/Tahsildars in other divisions l\t·ho were junior 
to the peritiofler

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