STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. versus S.V.NARAYANAPPA

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 22-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
v. 
S.V.NARAYANAPPA 
Augusl 22, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. J. A!'o:D J. M. SHF.LAT, JJ.j 
Mysore Civil Servia Rules, 1958-Govemmenl Order daied 22nd S•pl. 
1961-Loca/ candi®tes entit/.:.>d to have their stri·icts regule1rised under 
order-Break in servic.e after !st Jan. 1960-Efftct of. 
The respon<lent joined Class III service of the Mysore Government in 
1958 u a local candidate. 
According tD the Mysore Civil Service Rules, 
1958 a local candidate meant a temporary Oovenunent servant not ap-
pointed regularly in accordance with the rule• of recruitment 
to 
that 
s«Vice. 
On September 22, 
1961 tho Mysore Government paS!cd an 
order whereby under sub-cl. (i) of cl. 2 local candidates appointed befOl'e 
Dec. 31, 1959 were entitled to have their appoinlments reiUlariscd subject 
to certain conditions. 
Acoording to sui>d. (ii) of cl. 2 of the Order 
rbe services of local candidates were ID be regulasised with effect from 
the date of their appointmenr, from which their service was continuoua 
pnnided they were in service on !st January 1960 and continued to be 
in service at tho time their services were regularised. 
Sub-clause (iii) 
aaid that local service would count for purposes of lea....,, pension and 
increments but not for purposes of seniority, and that only the •enice 
from the dare of regularisation of the appointment in the particular 
depanment would count for seniority. 
Sub.clause (iv) laid down that 
breaks in ~rviee \\'Ould not be condoned even if such break<> were only 
fOf' short periods. 
There ~·as a ·break of one day in the rcspondent'i 
service on March I, 1961. 
The Mysore Government terminated his 
1e1Vice on July 4, 1963. 
The r .. pondent filed a writ pelition before 
the High Coun claiming that he was entitled to have his appointment 
regularised under the aforesaid Government Order. The High Court held 
that the requirements of tho Order were that a 1""'11 candidate Wti 
entitled to its benefit if ho joined service before Dec. 31, 1959 and was In 
aervice on two dates, namely I st January 1960 and 22nd September 1961. 
On this view the H.igb Coun allowed the respondent's pelition whereupon 
the State appealed to this Coun. 
HELD : The High Court was wrong in its con~truction of !".Ub-cl. (ii) 
of cl. 2 of the Order. 
On a harmonious construction o( sub-cl. (ii) with the other 
sub-
clauses of cl. 2 its proper interpretation would be that in order that 
the regularisation order may apply to a particular case the local candidate 
must be initially appointed prior to December 31, 1959, he must be 
in service on January l, 1960 and continue to be in service without 
any break till the date of the order. Since the service af the respondHt 
was not continuous during this period be was not entitled to regularisa-
tion of his appointment under the Order. (133 OJ 
av1L APPELi.ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1420 of 1966. 
128 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
MYSORE v. NARAYANAPPA (She/at, !.) 
129 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 21, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition 
No. 2173 of 1964. 
S. T. Desai, B. R. L. lyenger and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the 
appellant. 
B 
R. B. Datar, Ani/ Kumar Sablok and B. P. Singh, for the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave is against the Judg-
ment and Order of the High Court of Mysore quashing the memo-
rnndum dated July 4, 1963 whereby the State Government termi-
nated the service of the respondent. The only question arising 
in thls appeal is one of interpretation of the Government Order 
No. GAD 46 SRR, dated September 22, 1961. 
The respondent entered government service as an officiating 
computor in the Government Press on March I!, 1958 and con-
tinued in that post until September I, 1958. He was thereafter 
appointeil from time to time in officiating capacity in different 
posts though in the same department until December 3, 1959 
when he was appointed as a proof examiner. 
He continued in 
that post until February 28, 1961. According to the appellants 
there was break in his service on March I, 1961 as his service was 
terminated on February 28, 1961 and he was once again appointed 
on March 2, 1961 as a second division clerk (Industrial). He 
continued in that post until July 4, 1963 when the impugned 
order terminating his service was passed. The first of March 
1961 on which it was said there was break in his 

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