STATE OF MYSORE versus C. R. SESHADRI & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 10-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
STATE OF MYSORE 
v. 
C. R. SESHADRI & ORS. 
January 10, 1974 
(V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
87 
Civil Serrice-Promotion-Duty of Executive and Courts ill rt/M-
tion thereto. 
The respondent came into Class I post from October 2.,, 1946. From that daY 
till July 23, 1954, he was Private Secretary to three ministers. Without giving credit 
for bis service as Private Secretary his immediate junior was promoted as Deputy 
Secretary, The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that the 
order denying him credit for service as Private Secretary may be quashed and for a 
direction for payment of such amounts as he would have got had bis due inttr 1;e 
seniority and promotion been accorded to him. The High. Court granted both the 
reliefs, 
Jn appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in holding that the respondent '6'as ca-
titlcd to count his service from October 27, 1~6, for fixation of his seniority in the 
gradatioo list. • 
(2) The High Court, however, erred in directing the appellant to give the res-
pondent notional promotion as Deputy Secretary with effect from the date on whiclt 
his junior secured such promotion and for payment of the excess salary accruini 
to him on that footing. 
The power to promote an officer bClongs to the executive and the judicial power 
may control or review government action but cannot extend to acting as if it were 
the Executive. The proper direction therefore, can only be that the government 
should reconsider the case of the respondent afresh for purposes of notional pi:o-
motion. If the set\licc rule entitles him to promotion on the ground of seniority 
alone, Government should, except for the strongest reason, grant the benefit of 
promotion with effect from the date when his junior became Deputy Secretary es-
pecially, because, nothing had been suggested against the respondent in his career 
to disentitle him to promotion. However, if the criterion for promotion is one of 
seniority-cum-merit comparative merit may ha,•e to be assessed if length of service 
is equal, or an outstandmg junior is available for promotion. [88F) 
(3) The appellant State should apply to the respondent the same rule of pro· 
motion as was applied to his junior and not to act adversely without giving him u 
opportunity. Since the respondent had retired from service, the appellant shoultl · 
a1so consider promptly bis claim and make payment to hint of what is due to hi.a 
without further delay. [91A] 
Stace of Mysore v. Syed Malunood, [1968) 3 S. C.R. 363, 366 and State nf MysDl't 
v. P. N. Nanjlllldiah, [1969] 3 S. C. C. 633,637 followed. 
G 
(4) The appellant's inexplicable indifference is not placing before the Court the 
relC\'ant rule regarding Promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary merits the order 
that the appellant should pay the costs of the respondent even though the appeal 
is partly allowed. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION 
of 1968. 
Civil Appeal No. 175 
H 
From the judgment and order dated the 28th July 1967 of the 
Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 2378 of 1965. 
V.S .. Desai and M. Vurappa, for the appellant. 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 
B.R.L. Jyangar, S.S. Javali and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for respon-
dent No. J. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J. The State of Karnataka, appellant bcforo 
A 
ns 
has 
raised two contentions, 
the first being 
the 
more 
B 
m~terial but less meritorious and the second 
secondary but 
substantial. The first respondent 
herein filed a petition under 
art. 226 seeking several reliefs including (a) the quashing of an 
order denying him credit for service 
while 
he 
was 
Private 
Secretary to three Ministers beginning from October 27, 1946 till 
July 23, 1954 (with minor interruptions when he served in other capa-
cities, an inconsequential circumstance in this case) when he was n1ade 
C 
Assistant Secretary, and (b) a direction for payment of such amounts 
as he would have got had his due inter se seniority and promolio11 
been accorded to him. The High Court granted both reliefs and they 
are challenged in this Court. There is no doubt, on the pleadings and 
indubitable evidence on record, that the petitioner came into a Class 
I post from October 27, 1946 and hi.s claim to service since then run-
ning continuously, is undeniable. Learned counsel for the appellant 
D 
has fairly and rightly conceded the legitimacy of this claim. Indee

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