STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus BHALCHANDRA KHANDERAO JOSHI & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 27-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
782 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
BHALCHANDRA KHANDERAO JOSHI & ANR. 
January 27, 1977 
(P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Educational Se1Tice Class II-Amalgamation of History and' 
Political Science lecturers-Proof of amalgamatio11--Grant of optio11 to teacher 
to join History or Political Science se1Ticc. 
After the reorganisation of the States a separate seniority Est was prepared 
by the State of Bombay for History and Political Science teachers. On 20.8.1963. 
the Director of Education issued a letter conveying the decision oi Government 
to amalgamate the list of lecturers in History and Lecturers in Political Science 
and to prepare a single seniority list for both the subjects. It was 
express!} 
stc.ted in the letter that it was issued in pursuance of the decision of the State 
Government. 
Thereafter a revised seniority list was prepared. 
One Nanekar 
filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said order on the ground 
that when two separate seniority lists had been prepared for the departments 
of History & Politicai Science in accordance with the earlier Government Order 
of 1960, the new list was invalid. 
The High Court took the view that 
the 
existence of the Gocernment resolution dated 27.2.1963, which was said to be 
the authority for the issue of Di rcctor·s letter dated 20.8.1963, had not been 
proved. It therefore held that there was no such resolution or order requiring 
the preparation of n combined seniority list. 
It decided that the earlier order 
of 1960 requiring the preparation of separate list of History and Political Science 
continued to be operati,·e. It however dismissed the writ petition filed by Nane-
kar on the ground that he could not claim to be the seniormost person in his 
department. 
In the present writ petition filed by B. K. Joshi and P. S. Kane 
the High Court followed its decision in Nanekar's case and held that there was 
JH' order or decisiot1 dated 27.2.1963 so that the action of amalgamating 
the 
list of History and Political Science departments was invalid. 
A resolution was 
taken on 15.1.1970 in which it was mentioned that the earlier decision to amal-
gamate the two categories w~s given UP' on account of the difficulties which were 
experienced and an option was given by the 1970 resolution in order to obviate 
those difficulties. 
That resolution was challenged in the present proceedings. 
The High Court examined the effect of the Government . Resolution dated 
15.1.1970 and held that in the absence of the earlier resolution dated 27.2.1963 
the Director of Education was not competent to combine or amalgamate the 
seniority lists of History and Political Science Departments. 
lt assumed that 
legally there was no amalgamation at aU and any action taken on the basis of 
the amalgamation would also consequently have to fall on that ground. 
The 
High Court held that the option given by the 1970 resolution had the effect of 
perpetuating the effect of the working of the invalid list and amounted to viollt-
tion of ATt. 16 of the Constitution. 
The High Court held that in Nanekar"s 
case no attempt was made to produce the resolution of 27.2.1963. 
Allowing the appeals. 
Held: 1 : The High Court erred in observing that the resolution of 27.2.1963 
did not exist. 
The High Court lost sight of the intrinsic evidence which 
was available on the record to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed 
the resolution on 27.2.1963 to amalgamate the two lists. 
In the 1970 resoiu-
tion, the Government itself reiterated the act that a decision was 
t~ken by 
Government in the year 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in Hi.>tory 
and the Lecturers in Political Science into one common list. 
The reason for 
taking that decision to amalgamate the two .lists was also stated in that re.solution. 
in fact the 1970 resolution made a mention of the difficulties 
experienced in 
working· the 1963 resolution and that was why it was decided to revert to the 
decision to split up the combined seniority list which formed the l:>asis of prom10-
tio11 of some of the teachers. 
As the genuineness of the resolution· of 1970 was 
... f 
' 
MAHARASHTRA V. B. K. JOSHI (Shin.g/za[, J.) 
783 
mot challenged, the High Court ought to have taken notice of its intrinsic evi-
A 
,dentiary value fo.r the purpose of proving the earlier resolution of 1963. 
Jn 
·fact the Director in his order specifically stated that the decision of the Govern-
ment

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