K. V. RAJALAKSHMIAH SETIY .\ 1'. STATE OF MYSORE November 7 & Anr. v. MYSORE (Mitter, J.) S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and R. B. Dattar

According to Mr. Iyengar who appeared for the State, assum ing that law il)cluded executive directions for the purpose of Art. 14 of the Constitution, we have to see : (a) whether there is a rule which has been unevenly applied as among equals ; (b) if a princi ple has been evolved, whether it has been unevenly applied ; and (c) whether there has been an equal treatment in applying executive orders. Mr. Iyengar argued that there was no rule which had been violated in this case nor any principle had been evolved which could be said to have been unevenly applied nor was there any exe cutive order which has been given effect to in different ways in different cases. Mr. Iyengar's sec©nd submission was that if the 63 persons were to be fixed in the cadre with respect to the dates on which they wen first put in charge of sub-divisions, the seniority list with regard to the whole cadre of engineers would have to be altered thus affecting persons who are not before us and who would be condemned unheard.

His thlrd submission was that giving effect to the contention of the appellants would be projecting Art. 14 to a date before the Constitution came into force and thls could not be allowed. He also argued that the appellants had been guilty of !aches in making their applications in 1964 when they were really complaining of an order whlch had been passed as It was contended that the appellants far back as May 17, 1950. had been able to give no explanation as to why they did not apply in between the date of the impugned order and the !st of November 1956 when the Reorganisation of States became effective. Mr. Iyengar further contended that in reality a concession had been shown to some persons and the petitioner/appellants had no legal right to claim such concession. He also argued that giving effect to the contention of the petitioners would be going against s. 115 sub-s. (7) of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956.

There is some force in some of the contentions put forward It is not necessary to test them as on behalf of the State of Mysore. the contention of the we find ourselves unable appellants. No doubt some concession had been shown to the first batch of 41 penons and the batches of persons who had come in after the batch of 63 persons also received some concession, but after all these we~e concessions and not something which they could claim as of right. The State of Mysore might have shown to uphold ' 76 SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS (1967) 2 S.C.R. some indulgence to this batch of 63 persons but we cannot issue A a writ of mandamus commanding it to do so. There was no ser- vice rule which the State had transgressed nor has the State evolved any principle to be followed in respect of persons who were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers from surveyors. The indulgences shown to the different batches of persons were really ad hoc and we are not in a position to say what, if any, ad hoc indulgence B should be meted out to the appellants before us.

There is also a good deal ~f force behind the contention that the appellants are guilty of !aches. After the passing of the order of May 17, 1950, they should have made an application within a reasonable time thereafter. Merely because the Chief Engineer had espoused their cause and was writing letters from time to time C to the State Government to do something for them did not mean that they could rest upon their oars if they were really being dis. criminatcd against. As we cannot hold that the appellants were entitled to any particular indulgence or concession, the only way of meting out equality to all surveyors who had been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers would be to say that promotions D should in all cases be effective from the dd!e of the notification. This is obviously beyond our powers. In the ·result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but on the facts of this case, we make no order as to costs of this appeal. This order will also govern the case of S.A. Mur.i Reddy who alone out of 37 persons was allowed to intervene in this appeal by our E order made on I Ith October, 1966. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.