POTTI S K Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
Somnath Ayyar, J. -
(1.)When there was re-organization of States, and the new State of Mysore came into being, the petitioner who was an employee in the former State of Bombay became an employee of the new State of Mysore. When the Government of the new State of Mysore prepared a provisional inter-State seniority list on 13 November, 1957, his name was not included in the cadre of the secretariat stenographers. But on representation made by the petitioner to the State Government, his name was included in the revised provisional inter-State seniority list prepared on 13 September, 1962, by which he was assigned the fifth rank.
(2.)The sequel to the preparation of the provisional inter-State seniority list was the preparation of the final inter-State seniority list by the Central Government which was prepared on 30 April, 1965, and published on 6 May, 1965. That list did not contain the name of the petitioner in the cadre of the secretariat stenographers. In this writ-petition in which the petitioner challenges the final inter State seniority list prepared in the way, he asks us to issue a mandamus that promotions and reversions should not be made on the basis of that list. There is also a prayer for the issue of another mandamus to the Central Government to prepare a proper inter-State seniority list which should include his name and assign to him the proper rank.
(3.)Some considerable argument was expended over the question whether for the selection of the list in which the allottee's name should be included for the integration which is referred to in S.115(5) of the States Reorganization Act, the basis of such selection should be the post held by the allottee on 31 October, 1956, in the State from which he was allotted to the new State of Mysore, or whether it is the post held by him immediately after his allotment in the new State of Mysore. While the Central Government Pleader and the State Government contended that the material post is the post held in the allotting State and not the post held in the State to which he was allotted, it was equally strenuously contended by Sri Narasimhamurthi appearing for the petitioner that since the integration must reflect the services in the new State, the post which should regulate the integration is the post held in the new State and not in the old.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.