Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) This bach of appeals by special leave the first one out of which is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 7, 1968, of Somnath Iyer, J. of the Mysore High Court in R. S. A. No. 627 of 1964, and the rest whereof are directed against the common judgment and decree dated March 26, 1968 of M. Santhosh, another learned Judge of that Court, in R. S. A. Nos. 120, 881, 117 to 119 and 882 to 884 of 1967 shall be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question as to the validity of orders of dismissal from service of persons who are arrayed as first respondents in all these appeals.
(2.) The facts leading to the appeals are:The first respondent in each of these appeals was working as a conductor in the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad prior to the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. On the reorganisation of the States with effect from November 1, 1956, consequent upon the coming into force of the said Act, the said respondents were allotted to the new State of Mysore but their employment as conductors was continued in the Depots which became parts of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department. As a result of the disciplinary proceedings taken against them for certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by them, they were dismissed from service by the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department in December, 1960. The orders of their dismissal from service were affirmed by the General Manager of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department. Thereupon they filed separate suits for declaration that the aforesaid orders of their dismissal from service passed by the Divisional Controller were illegal, void and inoperative and they continued to be in service and were entitled to full pay. The challenge by the said respondents against their orders of dismissal from service was based on the ground that their appointments having been made by the Superintendent, Road Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, who was the head of that Department, their dismissal from service could only be by the head of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department i.e. by the General Manager of that Department and consequently their dismissal by the Divisional Controller who was not the head of that Department but a subordinate of his was in violation of the right guaranteed to them under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The contentions of the first respondents regarding the invalidity of their dismissal due to the contravention of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution having ultimately prevailed and all the suits filed by them having been decreed in their favour, the State of Mysore and the Mysore Government Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) have come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) Appearing in support of the appeals, Mrs. Shayamla Pappu, counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions:- 1. That as the post of the Superintendent of the Traffic Department did not exist in the new State of Mysore and the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department was competent to appoint and dismiss servants of the category to which the first respondents (plaintiffs) belonged, the orders of their dismissal from service could not be held to have been passed in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution in view of Section 116 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. 2. That in any event, as the General Manager of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department confirmed on appeal the order of dismissal from service of the first respondents, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. 3. That the posts held by the first respondents not being civil posts under the State, there could be no question of violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. 4. That the discretionary relief of declaration of continuance in service could not and should not have been granted on the facts of the present suits. 5. That in view of the fact that the first respondents were dismissed from service before the establishment of the Corporation and they did not choose to become its employees be exercising the option given to them to serve under it, no decree could be passed against the Corporation.;