SUBBA RAO - (1.) JUDGMENT
(2.) THESE appeals by Special leave are directed against the order of the High court of Mysore at Banglore quashing the order of the government of Mysore reverting the respondents from the posts of Assistants to those of Junior Assistants on the grounds that they had failed to pass the prescribed departmental examinations within the time fixed. 156 The facts are simple and they are briefly as follows. The new State of Mysore came into existence on 1/11/1956 under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. In the former State of Mysore, there were two categories of clerks in the Mysore Secretariat Service, namely, First Division Clerks and Second Division Clerks. After the reorganization of the State, the former were designated as Assistants and the latter as Junior Assistants. After the reorganization of the State, Clerks discharging similar functions in those parts of Madras, Hyderabad and Bombay States which were merged in the Mysore State had to be integrated with those working in the Mysore Secretariat. The respondents were temporarily promoted as Assistants on different dates between 21/12/1957 and 19/01/1965 pending finalisation of the inter-State seniority list. On 15/09/1965, the government of Mysore, purporting to act under rule 10-A of the Mysore State Civil Services, (Kannada Language Test and Departmental Examination) Rules, 1962, hereinafter called the 1962 Rules, ordered the reversion of the respondents to the posts of Junior Assistants on the ground that they bad not passed the prescribed departmental examinations within the time fixed. The respondents filed petitions in the High court of Mysore under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the said order of the Mysore government. The High court quashed the order of the Mysore government reverting the respondents, mainly on the ground that the respondents were not promoted subject to the said condition and that that was not a condition of service prescribed by any of the rules governing their service. The government of Mysore has preferred the present appeals against the said order of the High court. The argument of Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, learned counsel for the appellants, may be put under the following three heads : (1) Though in the order of promotion of the respondents no specific condition in regard to pasting of departmental tests was imposed, having regard to the relevant orders obtaining at that time, such a condition should necessarily be implied. (2) As there were no rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution at the time the respondents were promoted, their conditions of service were governed by the executive orders in force at the relevant time. (3) In any view, the 1962 Rules imposed such a condition for promotion of the government servants and that, therefore, the government was within its right in reverting the respondents.
(3.) MR. G. R. Ethirajulu Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the order promoting the respondents was not made subject to such a condition, that the relevant rules made by the governor in exercise of his power under Article 309 of the Constitution regulating the conditions of service of the Mysore government servants did not prescribe any such condition, and that, therefore, the said order of reversion was illegal. We will premise our judgment "with the observation that we do not propose to express any opinion on the question whether, apart 157 from statutes and rules roads by the governor under Article 309 of the Constitution, the government, in exercise of its executive fiat, can impose other conditions of service. That raises a very important question which does not call for a decision in this case, as the learned counsel for the respondents proceeded on the assumption that the Government could impose such conditions of service debar statutes and rules.;