R.R. KULKARNI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS
LAWS(KAR)-1966-8-7
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on August 24,1966

R.R. Kulkarni And Others Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Mysore And Others Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

T. K. KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1979-12-27] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioners in these three writ petitions were holding the substantive post of a police constable in the State of Bombay. But they were officiating until October 26, 1956 as wireless operators in that State. R.R. Kulkarni who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 347 of 1964 was appointed to so officiate on September 4, 1956; V.S. Bhandari, the petitioner in W. P. 348 of 1964, was so appointed on April 18, 1966 and joined duty on July 16, 1956; and V.L Mirajkar, the petitioner in WP. 2538 of 1965 was so appointed on July 12, 1956. But by an order made by the Superintendent of Police (Wireless) of the Bombay State in Poona, these three persons were reverted as police Constables.
(2.)ON October 31, 1956, under Section 115(2) of the States Reorganization Act the Central Government allotted all those persona who. immediately before they were allotted, were civil servants in the State of Bombay in the four districts which became part of the new State of Mysore, to the service of the new State of Mysore. In consequence of the order of reversion made on October 26, 1956 by the Superintendent of Police (Wireless) R.R. Kulkarni and V.S. Bhandari were in the District of Dharwar and Y.L. Mirajkar was in the District of Bijapur. Since these two Districts became part of the new Slate of Mysore, they became on November 1, 1956, in consequence of the allotment made by the Central Government Civil servants of the new State of Mysore. The three petitioners who were dissatisfied with their re version to the post of a police constable made representations to the State of Mysore against it. Their complaint was turned down by that State on March 30 1960 Bv a further communication addressed by the Government to the Petitioners on September 9, 1960. they were advised to represent their case to the Stale Advisory Committee "for redressed" The petitioners made that representation to the Stale Advisory Committee through the State Government and that Committee forwarded its recommendations in the Government of India who, by their mere order made on February 7, 1963, declined to do anything in the matter. Mirajkar then made an application for a copy of the order of the Government of India, but he was informed on June 4, 1963 that the document was a confidential document and so its copy could not be given.
On November 6, 1963 Mirajkar presented Writ Petition No. 2288 of 1963 to this court without, however, impleading the Stale of Maharashtra as a party. The other two petitioners attempted to gel themselves impleaded as parties to that writ petition but on November 18, 1965 that writ petition was withdrawn, and, it is obvious that it was so withdrawn by reason of the Maharashtra State riot having been made a party to it. Meanwhile R.R Kulkarni and V.S. Bhandari had presented their own writ petitions, namely. Writ Petitions 347 and 348 of 1964. Although they did not implead the Maharashtra State when the writ petitions were presented, they did so there after Mirajkar presented Writ Petition No. 2538 of 1965 with the Maharashtra State as one of the respondents after he withdrew his original writ petition. W.Ps. 347 and 348 of 1964 were presented on February 24, 1964 and W.P. 2538 of 1965 was presented on December 15, 1965. In all these matters the principal prayer is that we should quash the order of the Superintendent of Police (Wireless) in the State of Bombay which he made on October 25, 1956. We are asked to say that the reversion was discriminatory and unsupportable

(3.)IT was asserted on behalf of the petitioners that they were reverted as police con stables although when they were so reverted there was no justification for such reversion. It was submitted that on the date of the reversion there were quite a large number of vacant posts of wireless operators in the State of Bombay, and that instead of the petitioners being continued in those vacant posts, they were reverted to their substantive post with the intention of making the vacant posts available to those who remained in Bombay in preference to their being made available to the petitioners it was also pointed out to us that persons who were junior to the petitioners were either subsequently appointed as wireless operators or continued in the posts of wireless operators in which they were officiating. The com plaint made on behalf of the petitioners by Mr Jois was that the State of Bombay, as it was then called, made up their mind to send all those persons who belonged to the four Districts which became part of the new State of Mysore for service to that new Slate, and. the three petitioners who could have continued as wireless operators in the State of Bombay, but who could not be appointed to a corresponding post in the new State of Mysore, were reverted to the post of a police constable for the accomplishment of the desire of the State of Bombay to send away those three persons to the new State of Mysore. It was urged that it was this desire which animated the impugned reversion.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.