UNION OF INDIA versus DR. R. D. NANJIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 15-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

827 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
DR. R. D. NANJIAH AND ORS. 
October 15, 1976 
[M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJ.] 
States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956) s. 115-0pportunity to hear after 
final inter-State seniority list is prepared after giving opportunity to aggrieved offi-
cers to make representations against provisional list-If should be given. 
· 
Final Jist, when may be set aside'. by Court. 
A 
B 
( 1) When a provisional inter-State ~eniority list is prepared for integrating 
services after States re-organisation, there is a possibility of somo mistakes occur-
C 
ring about liie facts of a case or in the application of the relevant statute or rules 
or executive directions governing seniority. ·It would, therefore, .be quite fair to 
give the person affected an opportunity to _be heard against the proposed list 
before it is made final under s. 115, State Reorganisation Act, 1956, so that, any 
p066ible mistakes, either in the facts relating to his case or in the law or rule 
applied with regard to the proposed assignment of a place·to him in the seniority 
list may be rectified. 
But, once he had that opportunity, it cannot be said that 
he should have a further opportunity against even a final seniority list, for then 
D 
such a list would not really be final but will only be provisional or preliminary. 
[830 C-DJ 
(2) But, even a fina!Hst, if it is prepared contrary to the rules applicable or is 
vitia!OO on some ground showing that a condition precedent to the finalisation of 
• 
the list is absent, or a particular decision is malafide or arrived at on totally irre-
levant or extraneous considerations, such a final list could be declared invalid by 
the Court. [830· GJ 
In the present case, the officer was not satisfied with the position given to him 
E 
in the final seniority list. But, since he had an opportunity under the integration 
rules of the State for ·fil_ing objections against the preliminary provisional list, he 
cannot urge that he should be heard again after the final list was prepared. 
[829 AJ 
He cannot claim to have a say against the final list on the analogy of a secend 
opportunity to show cause against a proposed punishment in a departmental en-
quiry, because, no element of punishment is involved in preparing either a pro-
'l'isional or a final sell.iority list. [830 BJ 
F 
He is not entitled ta any relief because he had not made out in his petition 
· to the Court any< of the grounds on which a final list can be assailed. [831 GJ 
U11io11 of India v. G. M. Sftankariah & Ors. etc. (S.L.R. 1969 p. J) (C As. 
Nos. 1439 & 1446 of 1967-decided on• 16-10-1968) explainea. 
Unio11 of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186 @ 202 and 
Union of India v. G. R. Prabluivalkar & Ors, A.LR. 1973 SC 2102 at 2106, fol· 
lowed. 
CIVIL APPELT.ATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 
1744 of 
1968. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
14-6-1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 440/65). 
c 
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Girish Chandra, for the Appellant. 
H 
Narayana Nettar, for Respondents 4 and 5. 
3- !338SCT/76 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l 1977) 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J.-The judgment under appeal after certificate of fitness 
of the case under Article 13 3 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution of India, is 
very short as it purports to follow the ratio decidendi of Union of 
India v. G. M. Shankariah & Ors. etc.,(t) where this Court had neld, 
upon a concession by the Attorney General, that a list prepared under 
Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, (hereinafter rererr-
ed to as 'the Act'), was provisional. Therefore, it was held that the 
writ petition was pre-mature as the final list of officers on an integ-
rated seniority list was still to be prepared after hearing objections. 
The High Court of Mysore seems to have been under the nlisappre-
hension tqat the case now before us is also governed by what was 
held by this Court in Shankariah's case (supra) with 'refen;1ce to an 
entirely different and provisional list of Forest Officers. The case now 
before us pertains to Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services of 
the Mysore State in which the petitioner was given, in the final integ-
ration list, a position to which he objected. Apparently, the petitioner, 
whose date of birth is given as 28th June, 1915, has retired. He is a 
respondent who has not appeared before us, and, therefore, could not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.