STATE OF ORISSA versus KHAGESWAR DAS AND OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 12-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

300 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
KHAGESWAR DAS AND OTHERS 
. August 12, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, .TJ.] 
Orissa Industries Service Rules, 1971, r. 3(l)(ii)-lf violative of Art. 
16, 
Constitution of India. 
Rule 3(1) (ii) of the Orissa Industries Service Rules, 1971, provided that the 
junior grade of the service shall include the posts of Deputy Directors, Senklr 
lecturers in Engineering Schools etc. besides the posts of Principal, Engineering 
Schools (except Mining Engineering) and Polytechn~cs which carry a special 
scale of pay. 
The 1st respondent was 
appointed a lecturer in a Mining Engineering 
School. 
In 1960, the School was brought under the administrati·,re Control of 
the Industries Department of the State Government, and the respondent became 
an officer of the Industries Department. Later, he was appointed Pr~ncipal of 
the School. 
In 1964, there was a bifurcation of the common cadre of the De· 
partment, and a separate cadre for teaching posts of Engineering Schools in the 
State was created. 
In 1967, the two cadres were again merged 1orming a com. 
bined cadre for the officers of the Industries Department. The reason given for 
the merger was that the separate cadre for teachers was not beneficial to them, 
because, promotion prospects for them were bleak in v!ew of the limited posts 
available for promotion. After the merger, in 1969, even though the 1st respon· 
.dent was senior to the 2nd respondent,· the latter was promoted as Joint Direc-
tor superseding the former. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The High Court quashed the order and stn1ck down r. 3 ( 1) (ii) as vio1ative of 
Art. 16. 
E 
Dismiss~ng the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: ( 1) In the resolution of 1967 nierging the two cadres it was stated 
that the conditions of service of all the officers will be governed by a set of cadre 
rules to be framed later, but no such rules were fran1ed at the time of promotion 
of the 2nd respondent. 
The 1971·rules were framed during the pendency of 
the writ application, filed by the 1st respondent, in the H~gh Court. There was, 
f 
therefore, at the time of promotion of the 2nd respondent} nothing to show that 
the post of a teacher or the Principal of a Mining Engineering School \Vas treated 
as an ex·cadre post and on a separate footing for the purpose of promotion to 
the administrative po..,ts. 
[303G·H] 
(2) Rule 3(1)(ii) when it says in the first part 'Senior lecturers in Engineer· 
ing Schools, it includes senior lecturers of Mining Engineering School also. Even 
when the two cadres were separated, all Eng~neering Schools including Mining 
G 
Engineering Schools were placed on the SAME FOOTING. But, in the last part 
· 
of :he rule when referring to the post of Principal, the Principal of a Mining 
Engineering School is excluded. 
The exclusion 
i·~ without any justification or 
reasonable basis. 
f304.&Hl 
Therefore, the rule· is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 and the non·consideraticn 
of the case of the 1st respondent at the time of promotion of the 2nd respondent 
W"5 wholly arbitrary and illegal. 
[JOJH; 304H) 
(l) It is however not necessary to strike down the entlre rule 3(l)(ii). It 
is sufficient if the words 'except Mining Engineering' are struck down and deleted. 
[304Hl 
H 
~
~· 
\ 
f 
.. 
-... , 
' 
( 
~-
~ . 
, 
} 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• G 
ORISSA v. KHAGESWAR DAS (Untwalia, J.) 
30 ·1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURI5DlCTION: Civil Appeal· No. 254 (N) of 
197.J.. 
Appeal by special leave from the -'judgment and order dated the 
30th November, 1972 of the High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. No. 129 
of 1970. 
Gobind Das and B. Parthasarathi, for the appellant. 
B. P. Mdzeslzwari and Suresh Sethi, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliver~d by 
UNTWALIA, J.-The State of Orissa has preferred this appeal by 
special leave_ from the judgment and order of the High Court passed 
in a Writ Petition filed by respqndent No. !. Respondent No. 2 was 
appointed 
by. promotion to the 
post of Joint Director 
of 
Industries, Government of Orissa in supersession of the claim of res-
pondent No. 1. The High Court has quashed the said order and 
directed· the appellant to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for 
promotion to the post of Joint Director according to his seniority in 
the combined cadre formed by Resolution dated 2-10-1967. 
Rule 
3(1) (ii) of the Orissa Industries Service Rules, 1971 has been struck 
down as being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 
Responde

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