UNION OF INDIA versus G. R. PRABHAVALKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 16-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
G. R. PRABHAVALKAR & ORS. 
(with connected appeal) 
March 16, 1973 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
States Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956) s. 115-Equation of Officers 
fronz diflerent States when integrated-Principles. 
Under s. 115 df the States R ... organisation Act, 1956, the 
Central 
Government has to determine the principles governing the equation 
of 
posts and prepare a common gradation list by integration of sen.ices in 
different States which have been reorganised. The Central Governme.nt 
is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to officers in the matter 
of integration of services and the preparation of the gradation list. It 
must give full and fair opportunity to the parties affected to make repre-
sentations and' must give proper consideration to those 
representations. 
To assist the Central Government in thiS task and for a proper considera-
tion of the representations the Central Government is empowered 
to 
establish an Advisory Committee. 
It is not for the Court to lay down 
the principles to be adopted for the purpose of equation so long as the 
Central Government Acts properly according to the provisions of the Act. 
The power of the Court is only to see that the authority has acted properly 
in accordance with the statute; and it cannot go into the merits of the 
equation of posts which is a matter within the province of the Central 
Government.. Further, in the case of equation of posts, especially among 
officers who arc allotted from other States, it cannot be done with any 
mathen1atical accuracy. 
There will be some hardship or other caused 
to the officers of one particular region or the other. That is inevitable 
when service conditions of the officers coming from different 
regions 
vary. However, if a particular decision is 1nala fide or arrived on totally 
irrelevant or extraneous considerations such a deci~ion can be interferred 
with by Courts. 
[722B-G] 
Jn the present case, certain sales-tax officers of the Madhya Pradesh 
State were equated to grade JI officers of the Maharashtra State. 
The 
,officers of the Bombay State filed a writ petition challenging the order 
of the Central Government, on the ground that they were not given an 
opportu.nity to make representations and that the decision had been arriv· 
ed at taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous ma.tters, and 
that the Madhya Pradesh officers should have been equated to grade JI[ 
officer~ of the Maharashtra State. 
The proceedings were ad!ourned by 
the High Court to enable the Central Government to consider any repre,., 
sentations that may be made by the concerned officers. 
After such con-
sideration the Central Government expressed the view that the equation 
already made was correCt. The High Court, however, quashed the deci-
sions Of the Central Government, on the grounds that relevant matters 
were not considered and that irrelevant and extraneous matters were taken 
into account. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
c 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
H 
HELD : (I) It is true that a decision taken by the Central Govern· 
ment without giving an opportunity to the officers affected to make re-
pres;;:ntations is not a valid one. 
But the earlier order in the present case 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
UNION v. G. R. PRABHAVALKAR (Vaidia/ingam, J.) 
715 
bas been struck down by the High Court, not on the ground that the 
Bombay Officers (petitioners) had not been given opportunity to lJ\ake 
representations, but on other grounds which are not tenable. [724B.Cl 
(2) Assuming the Central Government did not give an opportunity 
to the Bombay Officers to make their representations before passing the 
earlier order the defect was rectified by 
the 
fresh 
orde" 
passed 
later. 
[724C] 
(3) The later order shows that the Central Government had considered 
only very relevant factors and that the decision had been taken in con~ 
formity with the provisions of the Act. The Central Government had 
con•tituted a Central Advisory Committee composed of the Chairman 
of the Union Public Service. Ccimmission, a retired Judge of the High 
Court and a retired Law Secretary to the Government of India. It was 
after taking into account the views of that Committee and having regard 
to the comments of the State Governments and the representations made 
by the officers concerned that the Central Government took the decision. 
The four factors which had to be taken into account as per t

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