Mitter, J. - (1.) All these appeals arise out of orders made on different Writ Petitions in the High Court of Mysore. The first group of appeals is by the Union of India while the State of Mysore is the appellant in the second group. The High Court delivered one common judgment applicable to the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise as also a number of other writ petitions which came up in appeal to this Court separately.
(2.) The writ petitions before the High Court out of which the present appeals arise were all filled by officers of the State of Mysore in different departments after the reorganisation of States in 1956 praying for the quashing of final inter-State seniority lists prepared by or with the approval of the Government of India and direction for preparation of seniority lists on the basis mentioned. The departments concerned were many including the Agricultural Department and the Forest Department. The petitioning officers stood allotted to the new State of Mysore under Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. As is well known, the reorganisation of the States resulted, inter alia, in the creation of the new State of Mysore which included the whole of the erstwhile States of Mysore and Coorg and parts of the former States of Bombay Hyderabad and Madras. Under Section 115 (1) of the Act officers serving in the erstwhile States of Mysore and Coorg were deemed to have been allotted to the new State of Mysore. Some of the officers who were serving in the former States of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras were similarly allotted to this new State. As a result of these changes, it became necessary for the Central Government to divide the services of the former States of Bombay Hyderabad and Madras and allot some of the service personnel to the new State of Mysore. The personnel so allotted had different conditions of service in their parent States. Their designations were different, their duties were not identical and their pay scales also varied considerably. Naturally the integration of personnel drawn from the different States and the fixing of their seniority became a matter of considerable difficulty and complication. Section 115 of the Act was an attempt to resolve these diffculties according to the procedure therein prescribed. Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 115 deal with the question of allotment of officers from one State to another and their continuance in service provisionally in one State until transferred to another State till their final allotment. To this and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 115 confer powers on the Central Government to divide the services of an existing State and allot some of the officers to the successor States. Sub-section (5) provides as follows: "The Central Government may by order establish one or more Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to- (a) the division and integration of the service among the new States and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras, and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this section and the proper consideration of any representation made by such persons." The content of the power contained in that section and the nature and quality of it were canvassed at length before the High Court. The High Court dealt at length with a group of 10 petitions filed by officers of the Forest Department and pronounced judgment thereon after interpreting the scope of Section 115 and the relative functions of the State Government and the Central Government in the matter of integration of the officers hailing from different States and the preparation of their inter se seniority lists.
(3.) The conclusions of the High Court were as follows:- (1) It was the Central Government which was charged with the duty of integrating the services in the new States to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of Section 115 and to properly consider any representation made by such person. (2) The power conferred on the Central Government under Section 115 (5) was an original power and an exclusive power. This position according to the judgment was not challenged at the hearing before the High Court. (3) The power in question was a quasi judicial power and hence its exercise was open to judicial review. The seniority lists prepared by the State Governments had no legal basis. At best, the information collected by the State Government could only serve as data for the Central Government which was charged with the duty of integrating the services. (4) The decisions impugned by the petitioners were merely provisional decisions as canvassed for by the learned Attorney-General who appeared for the Central Government in a batch of eight writ petitions. (5) The persons affected by the decisions had a right to make representations against them. These had to be considered by the Central Government with the assistance of the Advisory Committee in order to arrive at a final decision.;