Vaidialingam, J. - (1.) These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 25126-2-1969, of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 75 of l967, quashing the orders of the Central Government as well as certain other orders equating the post of Sales Tax Officer of old Madhya Pradesh with the post of Sales Tax Officer, Grade II, of old Bombay. Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 1969 is by the Union of India and Civil Appeal No. 2304 of 1969 is by some of the Sales Tax Officers of the old Madhya Pradesh State. They are also respondents in the Union's appeal. The appellants, in the latter appeal, support the Union Government in all respects. In the course of the judgment, we will refer to the array of parties as in Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 1969.
(2.) Respondents 8 to 13 and 15, along with six others, were serving as Sales Tax Officers in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On the reorganisation of States as from November 1, 1956, these 13 officers were allotted to the bilingual State of Bombay. By Notification Dated November 16, 1957, the State Government issued an order for equation of the various posts. The Sales Tax Officers from Madhya Pradesh were equated with Sales Tax Officers Grade III of Bombay. At this stage it may be mentioned that in Bombay there were three Grades of Sales Tax Officers, being Grades I, II and III. On the basis of the equation adopted by the State Government, a seniority list was published on May 21, 1959. In the meanwhile, the Sales Tax Officers allotted from Madhya Pradesh, not satisfied with the decision of the State Government equating them with Grade III officers of Bombay, had made representations to the Central Government. Their grievance was that they should have been equated with Grade II officers of Bombay. The Central Government, having due regard to the principles formulated earlier in consultation with the State Governments and after consulting the Central Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose, accepted the representation of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Officers and equated them with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade II, in the reconstituted Bombay State. This decision was conveyed by the Central Government to the State authorities by its letter dated April 23,:1960. The State Government gave effect to the decision of the Central Government by its Resolution dated April 27, 1961; and on that basis published also a seniority list on October 10, 1963, and invited representations and objections from all the officers. In this seniority list, the erstwhile Sales Tax Officers of the Madhya Pradesh State were equated with Grade II officers of the Maharashtra State and they were also given suitable ranks. From the records it is seen that only the first respondent, who was already a Sales Tax Officer in the Bombay State, filed a representation. His representation was rejected by the Central Government.
(3.) Respondents I to 7 and one G. S. Kochrekar (since deceased) filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 75 of 1967 in the High Court, under Article 226 challenging the decision of the Central Government and the State equating the Sales Tax Officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade II, of the Bombay State. Their main ground or attack appears to have been that in arriving at the decision the Central Government did not give an opportunity to the Bombay Officers to make their representations and that the decision has been arrived at taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous matters. The Writ Petition was opposed by the Madhya Pradesh Officers. The Central Government was also added as a party at a later stage of the proceedings before the High Court. On behalf of the Central Government, an affidavit was filed by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, detailing the reasons for passing the order of April 23, 1960. The proceedings were adjourned by the High Court to enable the Central Government to consider the representations that may be made by the concerned officers. Ultimately the Central Government, by its order dated February 15, 1969, expressed the view that the equation already made was correct.;