# C. MUNlYAPPA NAIDU ETC v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 791
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 761 of 1976
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/c-munlyappa-naidu-etc-v-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-6973
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C. MUNlYAPPA NAIDU ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
October 13, 1976
IP. N. BHAGWATI,
\I. R. KRJSIINA IYER AND
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
791
City tf Bu11;;ulore Mu11icijx1l Corporation Ser rices
( Gtnt'ral)
Cadre
tuul
Rccmit111e11t Reg11/atio11s, 1971, Reg. 3-Absorption of Senior Health l11spectors
by Corporation contrary to provision in Reg. 3-Ef]ect of .
•
The City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre
and Recruitment Regulations, 1971, framed under the City
of
Bangalore
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, came into force on 3rd March, 1971. Jn
accordance with the practice of the Corporation prevailing before that date
to have one half of the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors
manned
by
deputation of Senior Health Inspectors from the Karnataka State Civil Service, the appellants were ta,ken on deputation by the Corporation from the
Karnataka State Civil Service.
In 1974. the Corporation passed a resolution
that the appellants would be absorbed by the Corporation if they were willing to accept their ranking as juniors to the Senior Health Inspectors 0f
the Corpora•tion, and the State Government accorded its sanction to the
•\resolution of the Corporation as required by the Act.
But coming to know
, that the chances of promotion of the permanent officials of the Corporation
would be prejudicially affected by such absorption, the State Government
•ithdrew its sanction accorded earlier.
The appellants preferred writ peti-
,ons
for quashing
the withdrawG·l
but the High
Court dismissed
the
,,etitions.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the appellants bernme
permanent employees of the Corporation and ceased to be Government servants as soon as the State Government accorded sa,nction to the Resolution
of the Cotjporation and, that therefore, the State Govomment could not,
thereafter, by its unilateral action, reverse the process and annihilate the
!relationship of employer and employee between the Corpora-tiion and the,
appellants and restore their status as Government servants.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : (1') The Resolution read with the Government snnction did
not
operate to put an end to the status of the appellants as government servants and to create th~ relationship of master and servant between the Corporation and the appellants, and therefore. it was competent to the State
Government to withdraw the sanction accorded earlier; and this would be ;o
irrespective of whether the appellants expressed their willin?,ness to be absorbed
as Senior Health Inspectors by the Corporatio11 or not. [797 BC]
(a) Regulation 3 of the Regulations which were in force when the Resolulution was passed by the Corporntion recognised only two modes of recruitment to
the post of Senior Health Inspectors namely, by promotion from the cadre
of Junior Health Inspectors and by deputation.
Therefore. to absorb- Senior
,Health Inspectors from the State. Directorate of !fealth Serv;ces' as
permanent employees of the Corporat10n would be plamly contrary to the express
mandate of this statutory provision. [796 C & F]
,
(b) It could no~ be nrged that because they were already 011 deputation
m the cadre of Senior !fealth Inspectors under the Corporation. their absorption as pemmnent Senior Health Inspectors did not constitute fresh entry
into the ·cadre so as to require compliance with the Regulations,
Not only
,A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] J S.C.R.
their entry but also their continuance in the mdre of Senior Health Inspectors on the Corporation establishment depended on their being on deputation., because, it is only by way of deputation that Senior Health Inspectors
from the State Directorate of Health Services can
find place in the cadre
of Senior Health Inspectors on the establishment of the Corpora.lion.
Since
absorption is appointment, without amendment of the Regulations permitting appointment of Senior Health Inspectors drawn from
the. State Directorate of Health Services as permanent Senior H

## Text

C. MUNlYAPPA NAIDU ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
October 13, 1976
IP. N. BHAGWATI,
\I. R. KRJSIINA IYER AND
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
791
City tf Bu11;;ulore Mu11icijx1l Corporation Ser rices
( Gtnt'ral)
Cadre
tuul
Rccmit111e11t Reg11/atio11s, 1971, Reg. 3-Absorption of Senior Health l11spectors
by Corporation contrary to provision in Reg. 3-Ef]ect of .
•
The City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre
and Recruitment Regulations, 1971, framed under the City
of
Bangalore
Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, came into force on 3rd March, 1971. Jn
accordance with the practice of the Corporation prevailing before that date
to have one half of the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors
manned
by
deputation of Senior Health Inspectors from the Karnataka State Civil Service, the appellants were ta,ken on deputation by the Corporation from the
Karnataka State Civil Service.
In 1974. the Corporation passed a resolution
that the appellants would be absorbed by the Corporation if they were willing to accept their ranking as juniors to the Senior Health Inspectors 0f
the Corpora•tion, and the State Government accorded its sanction to the
•\resolution of the Corporation as required by the Act.
But coming to know
, that the chances of promotion of the permanent officials of the Corporation
would be prejudicially affected by such absorption, the State Government
•ithdrew its sanction accorded earlier.
The appellants preferred writ peti-
,ons
for quashing
the withdrawG·l
but the High
Court dismissed
the
,,etitions.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the appellants bernme
permanent employees of the Corporation and ceased to be Government servants as soon as the State Government accorded sa,nction to the Resolution
of the Cotjporation and, that therefore, the State Govomment could not,
thereafter, by its unilateral action, reverse the process and annihilate the
!relationship of employer and employee between the Corpora-tiion and the,
appellants and restore their status as Government servants.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : (1') The Resolution read with the Government snnction did
not
operate to put an end to the status of the appellants as government servants and to create th~ relationship of master and servant between the Corporation and the appellants, and therefore. it was competent to the State
Government to withdraw the sanction accorded earlier; and this would be ;o
irrespective of whether the appellants expressed their willin?,ness to be absorbed
as Senior Health Inspectors by the Corporatio11 or not. [797 BC]
(a) Regulation 3 of the Regulations which were in force when the Resolulution was passed by the Corporntion recognised only two modes of recruitment to
the post of Senior Health Inspectors namely, by promotion from the cadre
of Junior Health Inspectors and by deputation.
Therefore. to absorb- Senior
,Health Inspectors from the State. Directorate of !fealth Serv;ces' as
permanent employees of the Corporat10n would be plamly contrary to the express
mandate of this statutory provision. [796 C & F]
,
(b) It could no~ be nrged that because they were already 011 deputation
m the cadre of Senior !fealth Inspectors under the Corporation. their absorption as pemmnent Senior Health Inspectors did not constitute fresh entry
into the ·cadre so as to require compliance with the Regulations,
Not only
,A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] J S.C.R.
their entry but also their continuance in the mdre of Senior Health Inspectors on the Corporation establishment depended on their being on deputation., because, it is only by way of deputation that Senior Health Inspectors
from the State Directorate of Health Services can
find place in the cadre
of Senior Health Inspectors on the establishment of the Corpora.lion.
Since
absorption is appointment, without amendment of the Regulations permitting appointment of Senior Health Inspectors drawn from
the. State Directorate of Health Services as permanent Senior Health Inspectors under the
Corporation, the appellants could not be absorbed on the Cor~oration EstabJi~hmc11t. [796 G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 761 of 1976 .
•
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
28-5-1976 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 665/75) .
•
C
· CivIL APPEAL Nos. 845-854 of 1976.
D
E
F
G
H
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
211-6-1976 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 247,
237, 241, 243-246, 248 and 250/76 respectively.)
S. V. Gupte, S. B. Wad, A. K. Ganguli and Mrs. Jayesl:tee Wad.
for the Appellants i.n aJl the Appeals.
M. P. Chandralwntraj Vrs and B. R. G. K. Achar, for Respondents
1 to 3 in CA 761 /76.
Narayan Nettar, for Respondent 4 in CA. No. 761/76.
A. K. Sen, M. P. Chandrakantraj Urs and Narayan Nettar, for
the respondents in CA. No. 845/76.
M. P. Chandrakantaraj Vrs and Narayan Nettar, for Respondents 1-3 in CAs 846-849 /76.
B. R. G. K. Achar for Respondent l in CAs. 350-854176.
M. P. Chandrakantaraj Vrs and Narayw1 Nettar, for Respondents
1-3 in CAs. 850-854/76.
Narayan Nettar for Respondent 7 in CAs. 845-846/76.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.-This group of appeals raises a common question
of law affecting Senior Health Inspectors on deputation
with
the
Municipal Corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred
to as the Corporation). The facts giving rise to the appeals are identical and may be briefly stated as follows.
The appellants are Senior Health Inspectors in the Karnatalrn
State Civil Service. It seems that prior to 3rd March, 1971, when
the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General)
Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as
the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations) came into force, the practice
t
c. MUNIAPPA NAIDU v. KARNATAKA (Blwgwuti, J.)
793
of the Corporation was to have one half of the cadre of Senior Health
Inspectors ma.ined by deputation of Senior Health Inspectors from
the Karnataka State Civil Service and in accordance with this practice,
the appellants were taken on deputation by the Corporation from the
Karnataka State Civil Service. While the appellants were working as
Senior Health Inspectors on deputation, the
Corporation passed a
rewlution dated 30th December, 1974 approving the report of the
Commissioner that sixteen Senior Health Inspectors, including the
appellants, who were working under the Corporation on deputation
should "be absorbed in the interest of work if they are :willing on their
own PilY and accept their seniority as Juniors to the Senior Health
Inspectors of the Corporation." It is the case of the appellants: that on
the same day, immediately after the passing of this Resolution, they
addresse~ a communication to the Mayor of the Corporation intimatfog
lo him that they were willing to be absorbed a§ Senior Health Inspectors under the Corporation on their own pay and with ranking below
the Senior He(!lth Inspectors of the Corporation. The factum of this
communication was disputed by the Corporation as well as by the
State Government, but in the view we are taking, it will not be necessary for us to examine this question. To continue further with the
narration of facts, the Corporation sent the Resolution dated 30th
December, 197 4 to the State Government for according its sanction
and the State Government by an order dated 6th May, 1975 accorded
sanction "to the Corporation's resolution dated 30th December, 1974
regarding tile absorption of the Senior Health Inspectors" mentioned
in the Resolution under section 89 of the City of Bangalore Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). The
term of the Corporation in the meantime came to an iend and since
fresh elections were not held to elect the members of the :Corporation,
an. administrator was appointed by the Government to manage thr
affairs of the Corporation. The administrator requested
the State
Government io defer implementation of the proposal contained in the
Resolution dated 30th :December, 1974 since the permanent officials
of the Corporaion were considerably disturbed by this proposal as
it prejudicially affected their chances of promotion by reason of the
absorption of sixteen deputationist Senior Health Inspectors from· the
Kamataka State Civil Service.
The State Government on the basis
of the communication addressed by the Administrator in this behalf
passed another order dated 25th August, 1976 withdrawing the sanction accorded under the earlier order dated 6th May, 1975. The appellant~ being prejudicially affected by the withdrawal of tht? sanction,
preferred writ petitions in the High Court of Kamataka contending that
as soon as the State Government gave its sanction on 6th May, 1975
to the Resolution of the Corporation dated 30th December, 1974, they
were absorbed as permanent employees of the Corporation and they
ceased to be Government servants and the State Government thereafter
had no authority to withdraw the sanction granted by it under the
earlier order dated 6th May, 1975 and the subsequent order dated 25th
August 197 5 was invalid and inoperative. These writ petitions came up
for J1earing before a Single Judge of the High Court who rejected them
by a judgment dated 22nd September, 1975. The appellants thereupon
preferred appeals under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
18
:G
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
1961, but the appeals were unsuccessful and they were rejected by a
Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 28th May,
J 976.
Hence the present appeals by the appellants with special leave
obtained from this Court.
The principal question which arises for determination
Ill these
appeals is whether the appellants who are Senior Health Jnspectors
mentioned in the Resolution of the Corporation dated 30th December.
1974 became permanent employees of the Corporation and ceased to
be Government servants as soon as the State Government passed the
order dated 6th May, 1975 according its sanction to the Resolution of
the Corporation. There can be no doubt that if the effect •of the
Government order dated 6th May, 1975 was to snap the status of the
appellants as Government servants and to absorb them as P.Crmancnt
employees of the Corporation, the State Government could ~ot thereafter by its unilateral action reverse the process and annihilate the
relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and
the appellants and restore their status as Government servants.
The
main issue which, therefore, falls for determination is as to what legal
effect flowed from the Government order dated 6th May, 1975 : did it
have the effect of absorbing the appellants as permanent employees of
the Corporation with simultaneous termination of their employment as
Government servants? To answer this issue it is necessary to refer to
a. few relevant provisions of the Act and the Cadre and Recruitment
Regulations.
The provisions in regard to the establishment of the Corporation
are to be found in sections 84 to 95 of the Act. Section 84 provides
for appointment of a Health Officer, an Engineer, a Revenue Officer
and other heads of departments working under the Commissioner whik
section 85 deals with special superior appointments.
We arc not
concerned with either of these two sections since Senior Health Inspectors do not fall within the categories of officers dealt with in these
two sections. Section 86 provides that if. a vacancy occurs in an
office specified in sections 84 and 85 or in any office under the
Corporation the maximum monthly salary of which exceeds two hundred
and fifty rupees, the Corporation shall, subject to the confirmation ol'
the Government, within two months of the date of occurrence of the
vacancy, appoint a duly qualified person to hold such office.
The
office of Senior Health Inspector is undoubtedly an office the maximum
monthly salary of which exceeds two hundred and fifty rupees nnd,
therefore, a vacancy in that office is liable to be filled by the Corporation, subject to confirmation by the Government, under this section.
Sections 87 and 88 arc not material for our purpose and we need not
pause to consider them. Section 89 says that, subject to the provisions
of sections 84, 85, 86 and 88, appointments to the Corporation c:>lablishment shall be made by the Corporation if the maximum monthlv
salary of the office exceeds two hundred and fifty rupees.
It is clear
on a conjoint reading of sections 86 and 89 that it is the Corporatir.)'
which is entitled to make appointment to the office of Senior Health
Inspector and such appointment is subject to confinnation by
the
Government.
Then comes section 90 which provides that the Cemmissioner shall from time to time lay before the Standing Committee
c. MUNIAPPA NAIDU v. KARNATAKA (Bhagwati, !.)
795
a Schedule setting fort)l the designations and grades of o~licers
~nd
servants who should in his opinion constitute the Corpor~tlon establish·
ment and embodying his proposals in regard to salaries, fees
and
allowances payable to them and the Standing Committee may . either
approve or amend such Schedule as it thinks fit and shall lay it before
the Corporation and the Corporation shall then sanction such Schedule
with or without modifications and may also from time to time amend
it at the: instance of the Commissioner and the Standing Committee.
There is a proviso to this section which says that no.new office sh~ be
created without the sanction of the Government, if the
maximum
monthly saJ.ary exceeds two hundred and fifty rupees.
This proviso,
however, has no application in the present case, since the Schedule
sanctioned by the Corporation set out the office of Senior Health
Inspector and the absorption of the appellants as Senior Health Inspectors on tfle Corporation establishment did not involve the creation of
any new office which was not already enumerated in the Schedule.
Section 91 provides that no officer or servant shall be entertained on
the Corporation establishment unless he has been appointed under
section 84, 85, 86 or 88 or unless his emoluments are included in the
Schedule sanctioned under section 90. But this section also does not
stand in the way of the absorption of the appellants as Senior Health
Inspectors on the Corporation establishment, since they are purported
to be absorbed by the Corporation by its resolution dated
30th
December, 1974 and the Government Order d.ated 6th May, 1975 is
tantamount to confirmation of such absorption and hence ·section 86 is
· complied with and the office and emoluments of Senior Health Inspector are also included in the Schedule sanctioned under section 90. The
other sections dealing with the establishment of the Corporation
are
not material except section 94 which confers power on the Standing
Committee to frame regulations in respect of the Corporation establishment in regard to various matters.
It will, therefore, be seen that
there is nothing in the Act which debarred absorption of the appellants
as permanent employees of the Corporation under the Corporation ·
Resolution dated 30th December, 1974 read with the Government
Order dated 6th May, 1975.
But the argument of the State Government and the Corporation
was, and this argument found favour with the Division Bench of the
_High Court, that until the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations were
amended, it was not competent to the Corporation to absorb the
appellants as permanent Senior Health Inspectors on the establishment
of the Corporation and the Resolution of the Corporation dated 30th
December, 1974, though sanctioned by the Government by its order
dated 6th May, 1975, was not effective to bring about absorption of
the appellants as permanent employees of the Corporation with simultaneous termination of their service as Government servants.
This
argument requires consideration of s-0me of the relevant provisions of
the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The Cadre and Recruitment
Regulations were framed under sections 7, 84, 85, 88 and 94 of the
Act and they were sanctioned by the State Government under section.
94( g) of the Act and they came into force with effect from 3rd Mw·h
1~71 being the date on which they were published in the Government
19-1234SCI/76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 s.c.R.
Gazette.
Regulation 3 laid dow~ the method. of recruitment and
minimum qualifications for recrllltment to vanous postll enumerated
in the Schedule. One of the posts enumerated ~ the ~hedule was the
post of Senior Health Inspector and it was provided m Column 2 of
the Schedule that the method of recruitment to the post of Senior
Health Inspector shall be :
"50% by promotion from the Cadre of Junior Health
Inspectors of the Corporation,
·
50% by deputation from the State Directorate of Health
Services."
The Cadre and Recruitment Regulations thus recognised only two
modes of recruitment to the post of Senior Health Inspector, namely,
promotion from the cadre of Junior Health Inspectors and deputation
from the State Directorate of Health Servces and one haft ot the
cadre was to be drawn from each of these two sources. No other mode
of recruitment could be resorted to by the Corporation under the
Cadre and Recruitment Regulations.
It is difficult to see how in the
face of this provision which has admittedly statutory effect, the posts
of Senior Health Inspector could be filled in by absorption of deputationist Senior Health Inspectors from the Karnataka State Civil Service.
Senior Health Inspectors from the State Directorate of Health Services
could only be on deputation to the extent of one half of the number
of posts of ,Senior Health Inspectors on the Corporation establishment
and they could not be absorbed as permanent Senior Health Inspectors
under the Corporation without violating the aforesaid statutory provision.
This statutory provision does not contemplate any Senior
Health Inspectors on the establishment of the Corporation who are
drawn from the State Directorate of Health Services otherwise1han on
deputation and to absorb Senior Health Inspectors from the State
Directorate of Health Services as permanent employees of the Corporation (otherwise than on deputation), would be plainly contrary to
its express mandate.
It was, however, contended on behalf of the
appellants that when they were absorbed as permanent Senior Health
Inspectors on the establishment of the Corporation, they were alre~d.v
in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors under the Corporation, filling
50% of the posts and their absorption as pennanent Senior Health
Inspectors did not constitute fresh entry into the cadre so as to require
compliance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The position,
according to the appellants, was sinillar to that of an employee
who
is initially officiating in a post in a cadre and is subsequently confinned
in the post. This contention, we do not think, is well founded. It is
only by way of deputation that Senior Health Inspectors from the State
Directorate of Health Services can find pface in the c~dre of Senior
Health Inspectors on the establi~hment of the Corporation. Not only
their entry but also their continuance in the cadre of Senior
He~lth
Inspectors on the Corporation establishment depends on their being
on deputation.
There is no scope under the Cadre and Recruitment
Regulations for their absorption as pennanent Senior Health Inspectors
under the Corporation. In fact, it is impermissible to do so.
The
cateP"ory of Senior Health Inspectors, who are reP"Ular emnlovees of
tlle Corporation, can be drawn only by promotion from Junior Health
c. MUNIAPPA NAIDU v. KARNATAKA (Bhagwati, 1.)
797
Impectors and that too, to the extent of only one half the number of
posts. It is, therefore, obvious that without amendment of the Cadre
and Recruitment Regulations permitting appointment-and absorption
is really nothing but appointment--0f Senior Health Inspectors drawn
from the State Directorate of Health Services as
permanent Senior
Health Inspectors under the Corporation, the appellants could not be
itbsorbed as permanent Senior Health Insipectors on the Corporation
ot1tablishment. The conclusion must irresistibly follow that the Resolution of the Corporation dated 30th December, 1974 read with the
Government order dated 6th May, 1975 did not operate to put an
end to the status of the appellants as Government servants and to
cr~ate the relationship of master and servant between the Corporation
and the• appellants and in the circumstances, it was competent to the
State Government to pass the Order dated 25th August, 1975 withdrawing the sanction granted by it under the earlier Order dated 6th
May, 19~. This view taken by us renders it unnecessary to consider
whether the communication dated 30th December, 1974 was addressed
by the appellants to the Mayor of the Corporation expressing their
willingness to be absorbed as Senior Health Inspectors under the Corporation on the terms set out in the Resolution dated 30th December,
1974. Even if any such communication was sent, it could have no
legal effect because, as already pointed out by us, the appellants could
not be absorbed as permanent Senior Health Inspectors under the
Corporation, unless and until the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations
were first amended so as to permit such absorption.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
A.ppea~ dismissed.
A
B
D