P. CHITHARANJA MENON & Ors. v. A. BALAKRISHNAN & Ors.

The appellants were promoted to a higher post before the respondents were integrated into the Government service on January l, 1962. Throughout appellants have been treated as occupying a higher post and respondents' much lower post. Though the promo~ion of the appellants was before January 1, 1962 and was confirmed by vanous orders of the Government the respondents did not choose to challenge the orders till 1972. [689 G] F There is no ground fo: challenging Ex. PIO order. It refers to the G.O. of February 13, 1962 by which 16 respondents in the writ petition were promoted as Executive Officers Grade I on the adYice of the State Public Service Commis- G sion. Their promotion having been ordered on February 13, 1962 without chaUenging that order a subsequent order which determined the date' of conuilencement of service cannot be challenged. [689 E-FJ t There is no merit in the respondents' contention that if which the appellants and other Panchayat Executive Officers were absorbed arose after January J, 1962 the _respondents would be entitled to be integrated along with the Panchayat Executive Officers and since they were drawing sam~ pay they ought to have been given an equal ranking. The apoointrnents of_ the appellants and other Panchayat Executive Officers were made before D_ecember 31, 1961 and as the integration was to take effect from January 1, the vacancies the H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 3 S.C.R. ,A ~ "" .... 1962 they. cannot have any grievance. Further, the respondents were not equatt:d with the appellants . and other Panchayat Executive Officers when they were integrated from the Distnct Board Service. [690 F-G] CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C. A. No. 1547 Of 1975. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24-1-1974 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 5566/72). B Y. S. Chitale, A. S. Nambiar, for the appellant. K. T. Harindranath, K. R. Nambiar, for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and

#4. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran, for respondents Nos. 5 & 6. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J.-This appeal is by special leave granted by Court against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in 0.P. No. 5566 of 1972 by respondents 4 to 8 and 13 before the High Court. D E F The respondents herein filed the writ petition for the issue of the Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Ex. P-10, GO Kt. No. 3386/69/DD dated 23rd October, 1969, Ex. P!2 and Ex. Pl5 and quash the same and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 who are the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, and the Director of Panchayats to forbear the implementation of Ex. P12 and further direct them to implement Ex. P-8 grading-3 list or in the alternative to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala to consider and dis pose of Ex. Pl3 and similar representations by respondents 3 and 4 It was also prayed that a writ of certiorari quashing bx. on merits. Pl 7 in so far as it related to the petitioners and reseondents 3 to 18 in the writ petition be issued and also to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents 1 and 2, State of Kerala and the Director of Panchayats, to assign the writ petitioners the appropriate ranJ>s in the cadre of Executive Officers in the Panchayat Services. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the list Ex. P 17, the order Ex. Pl2 and the order Ex. PIS dismissing the appeal petition Ex. 1'14 and directed that a fresh list be prepared in accordance with principles laid down in Ex. P16 in the light of the judgment of High Court. Aggrieved· by the decision of the High Court the appel lants have preferred this appeal. G H The writ petition was contested by 18 respondents. Respondents 3 to 10 were Panchayat executive officers of the Malabar area func tioning under the Madras Village Panchayat Act, 1951, on 3Ist December, 1961. Respondents 11 to 18 were Panchayat Officers functioning as such on 31st December, 1961 under the Travancore Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950. The Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, Act 32 of 1960 received the assent of the Governor on 8th December, 1960 and was published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 119 It is common ground that the respon dated 9th December, 1960. dents became Government servants on and from 1st January, 1962. P. c. MENON v. A. BALAKRISHNAN (Kailasam, !.) 689 On 15th May, 1961, under Ex. Pl the Government passed an order that a;! Panchayat Officers/ executive officers who continue to hold their appointments at the time when the Act came into force will be absorbed as Panchayat executive officers in the new Panchayats. The rome order provided that the staff of the Malabar District Board shall be absorbed as Panchayat executive officers in suitable grades accor ding to their qualifications, grades and suitability. In December, 1961, 17 Panchayat officers were to be appointed R on a scale of pay higher than the scale applicable to the Panchayat executive officers. The Public Service Commission selected 17 Panchayat executive officers who were on the scale of pay Rs. 80-IJO and drew up a list on 27th December, 1961. They were appointed as Panchayat Inspectors under Ex. P8 on 28th December, 1961. To fill up these vacancies 17 of th~ Panchayat executive officers who were in Grade II on the scale of pay Rs. 40-120, the respondents 3 to rn C were appointed. The 5 appellants before us were appointed as execu- tive officers on the grade I Rs. 80-150 as and from I st January, I 962. The respondents who were the petitioners in the writ petition were integrated in the service. The Government passed orders laying down the principles of integration of the District Board employees and the J>anchayat executive oftlcers and Panchayat Officers. The impugned D orders under the writ petition are Ex. PlO, Ex. Pl2 and Ex. Pl 5. It is also prayed that Ex. Pl 7 may be quashed. The Government in Ex. PlO came to the conclusion that the vacancies on the advice ol the Public Service Commission and the appointment of those that had been advised on 28th December, 1961" arose only on the dates enumerated in the order Ex. PIO commencing from 30th December, J 961, and ending with 2nd January, l 962 and that the appointment can only be on occurrence of the vacancies. We do not sec on what to G. 0. basis Ex. PlO could be challenged. Ex. PIO refers MS No. 93/62 dated 13th February, 1962. By the G.O. of 1962, 16 respondents in the writ petition were promoted as executive otlicers Grade I on the advice of the Public Service Commission. The pro motion of the respondents in the writ petition having been ordered as early as 13th February, 1962, without challenging that order a subse- quent order which detennined the date of their commencement of In fact, the respondents were appointed service carrnot be challenged. to the higher posts on 28th December, 1961, and they took charge on 30th December, 1961, 31st December, 1961, 1st January, 1962 amt 2nd January, 1962. The respondents in this petition were integrated into the service only on 1st January, 1962. Their position in the ser- vice was to be determined by the Government later. denm were aggrieved at the posting to the higher post of the present appellants and others they ought to have even challenged promotion which was made on 1st January, 1962. Not having questioned legality of the promotion or the G. 0. of 1962 it is too late for them to question the validity of the G.O. of 1969 filing a writ petition in the year 1972. E F If the respon- G Apart from this insurmountable objection even on merits the res pondents have no claim. The Government passed Ex. Rl dated 31st January, 1965, laying down the principles of integration of the District H • --" • 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977) 3 S.C.R. Board employees and the Panchayat executing oftkers and Panchayat Officers. It provided that the integration must be based on functional parity. Ex. P12 is a G. 0. dated 5th May, 1970. The G. O. refers to the earlier G. Os dated 13th February, 1962, and 24th June, 1969, and states that the names of the 17 executive officers the appellants and others, are given rank under executive officers Gr~de I as on 6th January, 19_62. The grada_tion list is P-17 dated 22nd July, 1972. After refernng to the earlier G. Os the Director of Panchayals approved a final gradation list of Executive Officers of Panchayats as on 6th January, 1962. The appellants are ranked as 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 etc. The respondents made representations against Ex. Pl2 but these representations were not accepted and a list Ex. P8 was drawn up. The respondents again objected to the list and subsequently Ex. P12 was prepared. Objections (P14) were raised to Ex. P12 but they were rejected by order Ex. P15 and final list Ex. Pl 7 was pub lished in accordance with the suggestions made in Ex. Pl2. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that the order under Ex. P12 is against the position taken by the Govermnent in Ex. l'lU and PlO(a) and the Director had no authority to prepare a list Ill contravention of Bxs. PIO and PlO(a). Ex. Pl2 was challenged on the ground that it is not in accordance with Ex. P-16 which settled the principles to govern the integration. It was therefore submitted that Ex. P12 and Pl 7 must be quashed. Strong reliance Was placed on the order of the Government dated 15th May, 1961, which while it provided that Panchayat Officers Executive Officers who .continue to hold their appointments at the time when the Act comes into force will be absorbed as Panchayat Executive Officers . in the new Panchayats, secured the right of the staff of the District Board by providing that the staff of the Malabar District Board shall be absorbed as Panchayat Executive Officers in suitable Grades according to their qualifications, grade~nd suitability. On the basis of the principle of integration above cited it was submitted that if the vacancies in which the appel lants and other Panchayat Executive Officers were absorbed arose after 1st January, 1962, the respondents would be entitled to be inte grated along with the Panchayat Executive Officers and as they were drawing the same pay they ought to have been given an equal ranking. We have already pointed out that these appointments were made before 31st December, 1961, and as such the respondents cannot have any claim. The appointments of the appellants and other Panchayat Executive Officers were made before 31st December, 1961, and as the integration was to take effect from 1st January, 1962, they cannot have any grievance. Further, it will be seen from G.O. MS.97 /67 /A & RDD dated 18th March, 1967, which refers to absorption of various categories of staff of the defunct Malabar District Board in the Depart ment of Local Bodies, it is stated in Paragraph 3 that while 9 U. IJ. Clerks will be equated to the posts of Panchayat Executive Officers, 2nd Grade, 21 Lower Division Clerks and 8 Revenue Inspectors and 4 clerical attenders will be equated to the posts of the Panchayat Exe responde1;Jts 1 to 4 come It is stated that cutive Officers 3rd grade. under this category and are only 3rd Grade Execuuve Officers. Lt will thus be seen that the respondents were not equated with appellants and other ?a1:1chayat Execu~ive Officers when tht?' were integrated from the District Board service. B c D E F G lH i. P. c. MENON v. A. BALAKRISHNAN (Kailasam, !.) 69 I _ The persons similarly situated as the respondents herein who were rntegrated from the District Board services filed writ petitions before the. High Co~rt.impleading the present appellants challenging the gra <lallon and fa!lcd·in their attempt. The earliest petition is in O.P. No. Justice Isaac who heard the petition observed that the 1431 of 1970. petitioners catne in the integrated service as 3rd Grade Executive Officers and were promoted to 2nd Grade with effect i'rom 6th February, 1968, while respondents 3 to 10 (some of whom are appel lants before us) have been promoted ·as· early as 16th February, I 962, as 1st grade officers. The learned Judge further observed, . "Even ignoring this, respondents 3 to I 0 were I Grade Executive Officers from 16-2-1962, while the Petitioner has become even JI Grade Exe cutive Offic'r only with effect from 6-2-1966." As the petitioner before the learned Judge was holding a post much inferior to the posts held by respondents 3 to 10 from 1st February, 1962, onwards, he dismissed the petition being devoid of any merit on 24th May, I YTL. Another writ petition No. O.P. No. 6423 filed by one of the persons integrated from the District Board Services, against tho present appel lants and others was also dismissed by Justice Isaac on 27th June, 1973. A writ appeal filed against the order of Justice Isaac ill O. l'. No. 1431 of 1970 was summarily dismissed by the Bench of the Kera!a High Court. A , B c D E While the earlier judgment.s were all decided against respon dents, the Kerala High Court in the judgment under appeal took a different view. The decision under appeal proceeds on the basis that a regrettable mistake crept into the judgment in 0. P. No. 1431 ol 1970 and the earlier decision proceeded on the basis that there was a III Grade mentioned in G. 0. 814 dated 17th November, 1962, The High Court was of the view that there was a III Grade under the U.O· above referred to the earlier decision missed the fact that these Grades were not applicable on !st January, 1962. Though G.O. 814 of 1962 was not placed before us we arc not sure whether there was any mis- take in the earlier judgment for the G.O. MS 97 /67 dated l&th March, 1967, refers to persons being l!"ansferred from the Malabar D1stnct Board as Panchayat Executive Officers III Grade. Be that as it may we are satisfied that the respondents arc not entitled to reltefs prayed for by them in the writ petitions. As the appellants were pro moted to a higher post before the respondents were integrated into the Government service on 1st January, 1962. Further appellants have been treated as occupying a higher post and respon dents much lower post. Though the promotion of the appellants was before 1st January, 1962, and was confirmed by various orders of the G Government the respondents herein did not choose to challenge orders till the year, 1974. In the circumstances, we are satisfied th~t the order of the Kerala High Court has to be set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs. throughout F P.B.R. 5-707SCI/77 Appeal allowed. H i