THE STATE OF MYSORE versus PADMANABHACHARYA ETC.

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 24-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

THE !!'TATE OF MYSORE 
v. 
PADMANABHACHAR\'A ETC. 
[P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATuLLAH, J. C. SHAii, AND S. 1\1. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Mysore Service Regulations, rule :294(a) note 4--Scopc-Consritution 
of Jndia-Prol'i'io to Art. 209--Sc:vpe of. 
The respondent, who was a trained te"chcr, completed the age or 55 
years on February 3, 1958, and was ordered to be retired from service 
from that date on the ground of superannuation. 
He thereupon challenged 
the validity of the order by filing a writ petition in the High Court •nd 
contended that rule 294(a) of the Mysore Scn·icc Regulations-which 
prescribed •he age of retirement-having been amended m April 1955, 
1he normal age of supe.rannl?:ltion v.·as fixed at 58 instead of 55 years. 
A 
ll 
c 
On behalf of th~ appellant State it was contended (i) that even after 
the amendment of rule 294(a) in 1955, the age of superannuation in the 
case of trained teachers continued to be 55 ye.1rs though it "'as open 
D 
to the State 10 retain thcni up10 the ~gc of 58 y..:ars if they were fit and 
efficient; an<l (ii) that in any event a notification of the Govcrno:- under 
Article 309 of the Con')titution issued on 
~larch 25, 
l 959, 
valH.L1tcd 
the action taken in retiring the respondent and others upon their attaining 
the age of 55 years. 
The High Court r'jected both these contentions 
anJ aUov:ed the petition. 
On appeal this Courl. 
E 
1-lELD: (i) The respondent \\·as entitled to continue in servi;.;c upto 
the. age of 58 years and not bl! retircJ at the age of 55 years in view of 
the exception c::i.n•cd out by note 4 in 1hc general provision roniained 
in rule 294(a). [998 HJ 
Under r. 294( I) as it was before April 29, 1955, the normal age of 
retiren1ent \vas 55 years for all including trained teachers and it \\·as for 
F 
the Government to give an f!Xtension on the. ground of fitness. 
But 
after note 4 was added to n1le 294(a). the position \\.'ith respect to trained 
teachers was changed and they 1,1:cre norn1.:dly entitled to .-:ontinuc in 
scr\·icc till the age of 58 years unless the Go\·cmmcnt came to rhe con~ 
clusion that they did not have a good record of service or \i.·c:-e not uptei 
the mark. [998 BJ 
(ii) The notification of ;o.iarch 29, 1959 cannot be said to be a rule 
G 
\\·ithin the meaning of the proviso 10 1\rt. 309 for regulating the recruit-
ment and conditions of ser\'ice of persons appointed to the services anJ 
posts in connection \\"ith the affairs of the State .. All 1hat .the !'lotificat_ion 
or rule docs is to sav that the respondents having been invalidly rc11red 
should be deemed lo have been validly retired from service on superannua-
tion. It y.,·oulJ, if given effect to, contravene Art. 311 of the Constitution. 
such a rule cannot he a rule contemplated under the proviso to An. 309. 
[999HJ 
H 
CIVIL ArrEL!.ATF JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 447 of 
1963. 
• 
• 
• 
1
1
--
.. 
• 
STATE v. PADMANABHACHARYA (Wanchoo, !.) 
995 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment arid order dated 
Aprll, 19, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in Letters 
Patent 
Appeal No. 128 of 1960. 
B 
c 
Gopal Singh, for the appellant. 
K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 1. 
0. P. Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 7 
and 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wimchoo J. 
These appeals by special leave raise common 
questions and will be dealt with together. We shall take the facts 
of one appeal (No. C.A. 237) in order to understand the questions 
in dlspute and it will be unnecessary to refer to the facts in other 
cases for they are admittedly similar. 
Nanjappa, respondent in C.A. 237 of 1964, was a trained 
D 
teacher and was headmaster of a Government Boys' Middle School. 
He completed the age of 55 years on February 3, 1958 and was 
ordered to be retired from service from that date on the ground of 
superannuation. 
Thereupon he filed a writ petition in the High 
Court of Mysore, and the main contention raised on his behalf was 
that r. 294 (a) of the Mysore Service Regulations (hereinafter 
E 
referred to as the Regulations), which prescribed the age of retire-
ment of Government servants, had been amended with respect to 
trained teachers from April 29, 1955, and in the case of such 
teachers the normal age of superannuation was fixed at 5 8 years 
instead of 55 years. 
Consequently, the respondent could not be 
F 
retired on completion of the age of 55 years and the order by 
which he was retired at that age as

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