THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAM SARAN

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 10-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
983 
affecting his continuance in such post or office" have been 
specifically preserved by s. 116 (2) of the Act. Tliere is no 
legal right in an officer to hold an officiating post and he cannot 
claim that he cannot be reverted except for proper reasons. 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958) S. C. R. 
• 
823, referred to. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JumsmcTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 453 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
November 18, 1U60, of the Rajasthan High Court in 
D. B. Civil Writ No. 264 of 1959. 
S. K. Kapur, K. ][. Jain and P. D. Menon, 
for the appellant. 
· 
B. D. Sharma, for the respondent. 
1963. April 10. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
AY\'ANGARJ.-The State of Rajasthan is the 
appellant in this appeal which has been filed pursuant 
to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court 
of Rajasthan under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the consti-
tution and it challenges the correctness of a judgment 
of the High Court allowing a petition under Art. 
226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent. 
The respondent, Ram Saran, was appointed a 
Constable in 1947 in the Ajmer district police force. 
Two years th'ereafter he was promoted to the rank of · 
Head Constable and was confirmed in that post. On 
June 29, Hl5G he was appointed to officiate as a Sub-
Inspector. At that stage. the states Reorganisation 
• 
t 
Act (XXXVII of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the 
Act, was enacted which became operative from 
November l, 1956,-referred to in the Act as the 
appointed date, and by virtue of its provisions the 
1965 
Stat1 of Raj411i14n 
y. 
Ram Saran 
Apanzar J. 
1953 
St•!t ~· "" 1f1utlt.a11 
v. 
Ratn-Sartlll 
:I ~;·on:ar J. 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL 
former State of Ajmrr was merged in the State df 
Rajasthan and under its terms again the respondent 
was absorbed in the Police Service of the Rajasthan 
State. To give ·effect to this provision a formal 
order appointing the respondent as an officiating 
Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan State police force 
was also passed dated the same day. 
Subsequent thereto, on April 6, Hlf>7 the Depu-
ty Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range order-
ed the reversion of the respondent to his substantive 
post of Head Constable in the District Police Force. 
The respondent was dissatisfied with this order and 
his complaint was that it was not one passed in the 
normal course of posting since there were, nn that 
date, officiating Sub.Inspectors in the State police 
force who were junior to him but who continued to 
hole! their officiating posts and that such a reversion 
to his substantive post was in effect an order of 
supersession. 
He 
made 
representations to 
the 
authorities to set the matter right. \Vhen he did not 
>uccced iu his efforts, he filed, on July 22, 1959, a 
petition under Art. 226 of the constitution for quashing 
the order of reversion dated April 6, 1957, and for 
a direction to restore him to the rank of officiating 
Sub·lnspector according to his seniority. The State 
as well as the Inspector.General of Police and the 
Deputy Inspector-General of Police were implcaded 
as parties to the petition and the learned Judges of 
the High Court allowed it princip~lly on the ground 
that this order of reversion wa> in violation of the 
provisions of s. l l 5 of the ,\r,t. 
It is the correctness 
of this order that is challenged in this appeal 
before us. 
In order to appreciate the contentions raised . 
it is necessary briefly to advert to the statutory 
provisions on which the judgment of the High 
Court in the main rests. 
Those material in this 
r 
, 
- .. 
• 
•. 
.. 
2 s:c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
985 
context . ar~ ss. 115 to 117 of the. Act- occurring in 
Part X headed 'Provisions as to Services': 
"115. (1). Every person 
who 
immediately 
before the appointed day is serving in 
connection with the affairs of the Union 
under 
the administrative_ control of the 
Lieutenant Governor or Chief Commiss· 
ioner in any of the existing States of Ajmer, 
Bhopal, 
Coorg, Kutch 
and 
Vindhya 
Pradesh, or 
is serving in connection with 
the affairs of any of the existing States 
GJf Mysore, 
Punjab, Patiala and East 
Punjab States Union and Saurashtra shall, 
as from that day, be deemed to have 
been allotted to serve in connectiou with 
· the affairs of the successor State to that 
existing State. 
(2) ....................... : ........................... . 
( 3) ....................
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.