LAWS(SC)-1972-7-15

STATE OF MYSORE Vs. P R KULKARNI ET

Decided On July 24, 1972
STATE OF MYSORE Appellant
V/S
P.R.KULKARNI,ET Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Mysore has appealed by Special leave to this Court against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court allowing three Writ Petitions raising common questions of law and fact. There are thus three connected appeals before us against a common judgment which will be dealt with by us in a single judgment.

(2.) Each of the three petitioners before the High Court, now Respondents before us, had challenged the validity of reversion orders passed against them on 25-10-1956 by the Superintendent of Police (Wireless), in the then State of Bombay, a few days before the Central Government, by an order dated 31st October, 1956, made under Section 115, sub-section (2) of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') allotted the respondent to the newly formed State of Mysore. The respondent had been officiating, before their reversion, as Wireless Operators on a pay scale of Rs.80-5-100, after successfully passing an examination held in 1955 by the Police Wireless Training Centre at which the respondent Y. L. Mirajkar secured the 16th place, the respondent R. R. Kulkarni the 20th place, and respondent V. S. Bhandari the 30th place. They were reverted, by the impugned orders, to the posts of Police Constables on pay scales of Rupees 35-1/2-40. It is obvious that the reversion to the lower posts with lesser pay meant a serious loss to each of the 3 contesting respondents. The respondents had, therefore, challenged the reversion orders, passed practically on the eve of their allotment to the State of Mysore, on the ground, inter alia, that these orders amounted to punishment in violation of the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constituton. As the respondents were only Officiating Wireless Operators they could be reverted, without infringing Article 311, provided their reversion did not amount to punishment. As no case of punishment, in the eye of law, could be made out no violation of Article 311 could be put forward.

(3.) The petitioners had a right of representation under Section 115 sub-section (5) to an Advisory Committee, which they did avail themselves of, but their representations to that Committee were rejected on the ground that they could not complain of reversion orders which were passed before the order allotting them to the new State of Mysore. Thus, the petitioners' grievances against the reversion orders had not even been considered by the Advisory Committee which seems to have acted on the erroneous assumption that the reversion orders were quite disconnected with the Reorganisation of States, one of the consequences of which was that services of persons serving in one State were transferred to another under the provisions of Section 115 sub-s. (2) of the Act.