# ·' f·' . ~, UNTON OF INDIA v. PREM: KUMAR' JAIN & ORS. ETC · April 28. 1976

- **Citation:** [1976] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 166
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/f-unton-of-india-v-prem-kumar-jain-ors-etc-april-28-1976-7102
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

,._...... __ . __
.
A
B
c
.. D
£
F
G
11
. ,1~6
.
·' f·'
. ~,
UNTON OF INDIA
,
I
v.
PREM: KUMAR' JAIN & ORS. ETC ..
· April 28. 1976
[A. N. R;y,'. C.i., R. S. SARKARIA P. N. SHlNGlTAL
.
AND JASWANT SINGH JJ.l
·C01wiwrion of ·India A rtld~ 312--A/1 l11dia Sen• ice Act, 1951-IYhnlter
Union . Turitoriu ar~ 'State•.<' for.. thr pmposc of.
A new. c.odre of the ln<iinn Administrntiv.: Scrvic.: w:t• con<titute<l for Dtlhi
. nod. Himachnl Pra<le,h, and recruitment to it was made
dirtctlv
without
followinl! the normal method prc.<crihcd by Rule 4( I) of the J.A.S. !Recruit-
. m<llt) Rule•. 1954.
These Rule' were nmendc<.l, to provide for n ioint c3<1re
for the Union Territories and the North East Frontier Agcncv. and the Central
GO\-eroment formul:ttecl a scheme for extcndinl': the Ddhi-Himachal Pradesh
Cadre to all the Union Territories bl( 'lb<orbin!! its officers an.l
nr>PQintin~
of]'icers from. the Todian Frontier Adrni~i,trative Service and all other Union
Territorie• initiallv. The ioint cndre wn~ brou~ht into e xistence bv the Central
Government's onier4 notified under S.:e. · 3 (I ) of the T.A.S. (Cadre) l!ul<5.
1954, !'Uhlished in the G;w.:ue of India, F.~traordinary. The creation of tiK
new joint cadre · nnJ
th~ anpointmcnt of. some of the respondents th~reto.
were chnllcnged in. the llit•h Court on the cround that they were contrary
to Art. 312 of the Con"itution nnLI the All India Services Act. 1951. as
the joint carlrc \\'a.S not common to the Union nnd the States inasmuch as a.
Union Territory· Wft5 not a Stnte, nnd the recruitment of the resoondent•
concerned, Wi!Jl
ille~al. The Hich Court quash•<.! the Central Gover11mcnt's
ordu< and the scheme for the formation of a ioint cadre of the J.A.S. nr.d
h~J ,J lhat !h•.=atic>n of. the Delhi H imachal Pra.te,;h Cadre was al-;o ultra virci
lhc Con,lttutJOn.' ~
~t..., stlon of law which came up before thi.• cOurt "':\.'
w~eth:r _1Jnton Terntor.,, aro 'Stole~' for tho purpose of Art. 311 of
&e
Con,lilut•un. llnd lhc all Jndia Service Rule•. 195 L 7
},llowing the apf>e~l• the Cottrt,
·
I' Hf'f.O: Section 3~58) of the c~neral ChHJSCS Act. 1897, provid., inter
•.~·1
• lhnt·. tbe expresst~n 'Stale' shall me;m
~:1 state spccifi~d in th• fir<;,
~.hed!tle . to. t.he. Con•t•rutlon
nnd
~hall
include. n
U nion
Terirtorv.
nv VIrtU~ or Arttcl.- 372-A or th-.
Constitution.
which wa~ in~el\ed bv tM
Co•~•tltutton tS.:v~nth Amendmcn\) Ac ~
1956 becou<e of the fact that th~
~n~e.r. of· ndaJ>t.~hon · un<l~r · nrticle 372'(2) h:W con•o to ntl ~"'1. it -..·:~~ thJt
~c lllttl~n of the exnre..,.ion 'Stull'' which haJ eiTect frorn
th~ t st <lav of
h ovem e.r. 195~. Vld Inc C'on<tltution expres~ly orovidcd th,1t it caul.! not
e. que<tloned '" unv COull of btw.
T• Wll$ a
·~c!al nrovi•ion \\'nkh \\111 .
me,Jnt (0 '<fVl' fhr (lllr11i>'e
(
I.'
L
I
bl~
Artide 37' A 1
"
ma•mP t.,e s.-,••nth Arncn.!m••nt A~l '""•l ·
analc>r•nn• ~in ~~~u·,:;~v<' n ~<''h ~w~r rn th .. Pr.-<id••nt which ""'< ~ual ";~' ·
th• Pr"'iJrnt th•rdor er 11" er nrllcll 37212\.
A• from Novrmt..•r I. 19. ·
hrineinJ: tne provj<lo~. h.t~t the flOV.('l : (O nd:,nJ th• bw~ ror tho• nttr~e of
l"rovi,fon• of thl' Con<li~ t' ony law '" force in ln<lia in
~,·c•"'l' <'tth. th~
i·•urd the Adurl'ltion of l' ron. ~I ,..,,, lln•lrr !hat pow~r thnt th<" Pr.stJ(O
dnu!lt' (~R) In .::ctinn 3 0~~h ( G 0 • I 1 O«l'f. 1911i, whi<"h ~uh<ritnt.,l thr nt~•
'f1,,.
l·li~h Court W<'nl wr
":
.trn~rat Clause• Act. 1 ~97. ,...r"rr"l "' ahrW i
"llnion Tc-rritori-""'1" w
on~ \~ t~tku.,t! " rnhtrarv vi.-w nnft irt
hll1dio~ chr~
ere 0 " 1
Stut~
(l6Mf';, 169.\G. 1710!
"'''"'If'~"""'"' nf A I·
1
fl'l70J 3 S r R
·~1 'r:r"''u, 11' 11'""ct Co. Ltd. v . . %ri Gmudau~i!l ~- ()rr .•
· ·
• "" •
1 .:rreu tn.
oft~~~~.'- Ar>PrtLATP. JURI'mtcno~: Civil Appeals Nos. 218~~~99
.~·
(From the iudl!mc t
1
d
D !hi
Hil'h Court in Writ p ~}
0
( ~~ et dated the 25-9-1969 of tbll
c
'
e 1 100~ 1{o~. <405 nncl 4 7R to 487 of 1 961!) •
-r--
I .-
-
UNION v, P. K. JAIN (Shinghal, !.)
167
V. P. Rama11, A

## Text

,._...... __ . __
.
A
B
c
.. D
£
F
G
11
. ,1~6
.
·' f·'
. ~,
UNTON OF INDIA
,
I
v.
PREM: KUMAR' JAIN & ORS. ETC ..
· April 28. 1976
[A. N. R;y,'. C.i., R. S. SARKARIA P. N. SHlNGlTAL
.
AND JASWANT SINGH JJ.l
·C01wiwrion of ·India A rtld~ 312--A/1 l11dia Sen• ice Act, 1951-IYhnlter
Union . Turitoriu ar~ 'State•.<' for.. thr pmposc of.
A new. c.odre of the ln<iinn Administrntiv.: Scrvic.: w:t• con<titute<l for Dtlhi
. nod. Himachnl Pra<le,h, and recruitment to it was made
dirtctlv
without
followinl! the normal method prc.<crihcd by Rule 4( I) of the J.A.S. !Recruit-
. m<llt) Rule•. 1954.
These Rule' were nmendc<.l, to provide for n ioint c3<1re
for the Union Territories and the North East Frontier Agcncv. and the Central
GO\-eroment formul:ttecl a scheme for extcndinl': the Ddhi-Himachal Pradesh
Cadre to all the Union Territories bl( 'lb<orbin!! its officers an.l
nr>PQintin~
of]'icers from. the Todian Frontier Adrni~i,trative Service and all other Union
Territorie• initiallv. The ioint cndre wn~ brou~ht into e xistence bv the Central
Government's onier4 notified under S.:e. · 3 (I ) of the T.A.S. (Cadre) l!ul<5.
1954, !'Uhlished in the G;w.:ue of India, F.~traordinary. The creation of tiK
new joint cadre · nnJ
th~ anpointmcnt of. some of the respondents th~reto.
were chnllcnged in. the llit•h Court on the cround that they were contrary
to Art. 312 of the Con"itution nnLI the All India Services Act. 1951. as
the joint carlrc \\'a.S not common to the Union nnd the States inasmuch as a.
Union Territory· Wft5 not a Stnte, nnd the recruitment of the resoondent•
concerned, Wi!Jl
ille~al. The Hich Court quash•<.! the Central Gover11mcnt's
ordu< and the scheme for the formation of a ioint cadre of the J.A.S. nr.d
h~J ,J lhat !h•.=atic>n of. the Delhi H imachal Pra.te,;h Cadre was al-;o ultra virci
lhc Con,lttutJOn.' ~
~t..., stlon of law which came up before thi.• cOurt "':\.'
w~eth:r _1Jnton Terntor.,, aro 'Stole~' for tho purpose of Art. 311 of
&e
Con,lilut•un. llnd lhc all Jndia Service Rule•. 195 L 7
},llowing the apf>e~l• the Cottrt,
·
I' Hf'f.O: Section 3~58) of the c~neral ChHJSCS Act. 1897, provid., inter
•.~·1
• lhnt·. tbe expresst~n 'Stale' shall me;m
~:1 state spccifi~d in th• fir<;,
~.hed!tle . to. t.he. Con•t•rutlon
nnd
~hall
include. n
U nion
Terirtorv.
nv VIrtU~ or Arttcl.- 372-A or th-.
Constitution.
which wa~ in~el\ed bv tM
Co•~•tltutton tS.:v~nth Amendmcn\) Ac ~
1956 becou<e of the fact that th~
~n~e.r. of· ndaJ>t.~hon · un<l~r · nrticle 372'(2) h:W con•o to ntl ~"'1. it -..·:~~ thJt
~c lllttl~n of the exnre..,.ion 'Stull'' which haJ eiTect frorn
th~ t st <lav of
h ovem e.r. 195~. Vld Inc C'on<tltution expres~ly orovidcd th,1t it caul.! not
e. que<tloned '" unv COull of btw.
T• Wll$ a
·~c!al nrovi•ion \\'nkh \\111 .
me,Jnt (0 '<fVl' fhr (lllr11i>'e
(
I.'
L
I
bl~
Artide 37' A 1
"
ma•mP t.,e s.-,••nth Arncn.!m••nt A~l '""•l ·
analc>r•nn• ~in ~~~u·,:;~v<' n ~<''h ~w~r rn th .. Pr.-<id••nt which ""'< ~ual ";~' ·
th• Pr"'iJrnt th•rdor er 11" er nrllcll 37212\.
A• from Novrmt..•r I. 19. ·
hrineinJ: tne provj<lo~. h.t~t the flOV.('l : (O nd:,nJ th• bw~ ror tho• nttr~e of
l"rovi,fon• of thl' Con<li~ t' ony law '" force in ln<lia in
~,·c•"'l' <'tth. th~
i·•urd the Adurl'ltion of l' ron. ~I ,..,,, lln•lrr !hat pow~r thnt th<" Pr.stJ(O
dnu!lt' (~R) In .::ctinn 3 0~~h ( G 0 • I 1 O«l'f. 1911i, whi<"h ~uh<ritnt.,l thr nt~•
'f1,,.
l·li~h Court W<'nl wr
":
.trn~rat Clause• Act. 1 ~97. ,...r"rr"l "' ahrW i
"llnion Tc-rritori-""'1" w
on~ \~ t~tku.,t! " rnhtrarv vi.-w nnft irt
hll1dio~ chr~
ere 0 " 1
Stut~
(l6Mf';, 169.\G. 1710!
"'''"'If'~"""'"' nf A I·
1
fl'l70J 3 S r R
·~1 'r:r"''u, 11' 11'""ct Co. Ltd. v . . %ri Gmudau~i!l ~- ()rr .•
· ·
• "" •
1 .:rreu tn.
oft~~~~.'- Ar>PrtLATP. JURI'mtcno~: Civil Appeals Nos. 218~~~99
.~·
(From the iudl!mc t
1
d
D !hi
Hil'h Court in Writ p ~}
0
( ~~ et dated the 25-9-1969 of tbll
c
'
e 1 100~ 1{o~. <405 nncl 4 7R to 487 of 1 961!) •
-r--
I .-
-
UNION v, P. K. JAIN (Shinghal, !.)
167
V. P. Rama11, Addl. Sol. General with P. P. Rao, and S. P. Nayar,
A
for the appeUant.
R. B. Datar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J.
These appeals by certificate are directed against the
B
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated September 25, 1969, allowing
Civil Writ Petition No. 405 of 1968 and connected petitions Nos. 478
to 487 of 1968.
The High Court has quashed the orders of the Central Government notified in GSR 42 to 49, published in Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, dated January 13, 1968, as well as the scheme
for the formation of a joint cadre of the Indian Administrative Service,
hereinafter referred to as the Service, for the Union Territories, and
C
has held that the formation of the Delhi-Himachal cadre of the Service
was also ultra vires the Constitution.
As we shall show, the decision
has turned on a short point of law, and it will be enough to refer to
those facts which bear on it.
A new cadre of the Service was constituted for the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh, and recruitment to that cadre was
made directly without complying with the requirement of rule 4 ( 1) of
the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules, which prescribed the normal method of recruitment to the Service.
The Rules were amended
(\n December 21, 1967, by providing for a Joint Cadre in relation to
the Union Territories and the North East Frontier Agency, and the
Central Government formulated the aforesaid scheme to extend the
Delhi-Himachal Pradesh Cadre to all Union Territories by absorbing
the officers of that cadre and by appointing to it officers of the Indian
Frontier Administrative Service and all other Union Territories at its
initial constitution. The Joint Cadre for all the Union Territories was
hrought into existence from January 1, 1968, by GSR 42 under rule
3 (1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Cadre Rules, published (along with certain
consequential changes in the other rules of the Service) in Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, dated January 13, 1968.
The petitioners in the
High Court challenged the creation of the new Joint Cadre for all the
Union Territories, and the appointment of some of the respondents
thereto.
It was urged in the High Court that the constitution of the
new Joint Cadre was illegal as it was contrary to the provisions of
article 312 of the Constitution and the All India Services Act, 1951.
as it was not common to the Union and the State inasmuch as a Union
Territory was not a State. and the recruitment of the respondents concerned to the Joint Cadre was contrary to the provisions of section 3
of the AU India Services Act, 1951, and the Cadre Rules.
D
F
G
The High Court examined the question whether the Union Territo· n
ries were States, and reached the conclusion that this was not so. It
therefore held that rule 4(5) of the Recruitment Rules was ultra vires
the Constitu~ion ~n~ the All Tnc_ti~ Services Act, fo~ the Cadre in ques~
A
B
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976) SUPPLEMENTARY
ti?n could not be said to be common to the Union and the States.
The
High Court also observed that as the Central Government was itself the
State Government for purposes of a Union Territory,
the
Central
Governmen~ could. not consult itself within the meaning of section 3 of
the All Ind1a SerVlces Act and the Recruitment and the Cadre Rules.
It therefore quashed the orders and the scheme mentioned above.
. It appears, ho:vever, that it was not brought to the notice of the
H1gh Court that, m so far as the Service was concerned, it was not
necessary for Parliament to make a Jaw providing for its creation as a
service common t? t~ Union and the States, under clause (1) of article
312 ?f the Constttutmn, because clause (2) of that article expressly
provtded as follows,-
C
"312. (2) The services known at the commencement of
this Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service and the
Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created
by Parliament under this article."
D
E
F
G
H
The Service did not therefore have to be create-d under the provisions
of clause ( 1} of article 312 of the Constitution, or section 2A of the
All India Services Act. Section 3 ( 1) of that Act however made prcr
vision for the making of rules for the regulation of recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to an All-India Service
"after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned." It
was under that provision that the Cadre Rules were made by the Central Government, and the question which engaged the attention of the
High Court was whether the Union Territories could be said to be
States for purposes of such consultation.
In that connection the High
Court examined the question whether the Union Territories could be
said to be States merely because rule 2(c) ~f the Cadre Rules defined
a uState" to mean a State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution and including a Union Territory, and answered it in the n~ative.
The expression ''State" has not been defined in the Constitution,
but it has been defined as follows in section 3 (58) of the General
Clauses Act (Act X of 1897) ,-
ustate"-
(a) as respects any period before the commencement of
the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956,
shall mean a Part A State, a Part B State or n Part C
State; and
(b) as respects any period after such commencement, shall
mean a State specified in the First Schedule to the
Constitution and shall include n Union Territory.''
This was however not the original definition, for it wa<> substituted by
the Adaptation of Laws (No. 1) Order, 1956. Before that Order, the
expression "State" meant ''a Part A State, a Part B ~tate or a Part C
State!' That definition was, in its turn, brought in by adaptation
under article 372 of the Constitution by the Adaptation of Law!! Order,
1950, for the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in
--..
..
'
..
}- .
) .,
U~IOJ\ , ., P. K. JAIN (5MnilWI, f.)
lGO
the territory of India in accord with the provisions of the Constitution.
The original definition has thus been adapted twice to suit the require~
ments of the Constitution.
Clause ( 1) of anicle 367, which deals with "interpretation'' of the
Constitution, provides as follows,-
"367(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, the Gene~
ral Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and
modifications that may be made therein under article 372
apply for the interpretation of this Constitution as it applies
for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of tht
Dominion of India."
A cross~reference to article 372(2) shows that while the purpose of
the adaptation was to bring the provisions of any law in force in the
country "into accord with" the provisions of the Constitution, clause
(3) thereof expressly stated, inter alia, as follows,-
"(3) Nothing in clause (2) shall be deemed-
( a) to empower the President to make any adaptation or
modification of any law after the expiration of three
years from the commencement of this Constitution;"
;
"'"
The power of adaptation or modification was therefore spent after the
expiry of three years, and the High Court has taken the view that as
it were only the adaptations made in the General Clauses Act under
article 372(2) which applied to the interpretation of the Constitution
in view of article 367 (1). the adaptations made later, by article 372A,
were not so applicable.
A comparison of the provisions of articles 372 and 372A shows,
however, that while the purpose of both the articles was to bring the
provisions of any law in force in India "into accord" with the
provi~
sions of the Constitution, article 3 72 was a general provision enabling
the making of adaptations.and modifications in such laws by an order
of the President. whereas article 372A was a special provision which
was made specifically for purposes
of the Constitution
(Seventh
Amendment) Act. 1956. inasmuch as clause ( 1) thereof provided as
follows.-·-·
"37'2/\ (l) For the purposes of bringiog the. provisions
of any law in force in India or in nny part thereof,
immc~
diately before the commencement of the Constitution
(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, into accord with the pr~
visions of this Constitution as amended by {hat Act, the President may by order made before the 1st day of November,
1957, make such adaptations and modifications of the law,
whether by way of repeal or amendment, 'fls may be necessary
or expedient, and provide that the law shall, a.s from such
<;late as may be specified ~ t~e order, have effect subject to
.
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUl'REM.E COURT ~El'OKIS
LEJ76j SUl'PLEMBNTARY
the adaptations and modifications so made, and any such
actaptatwn or modification shall not be questioned w
any
court of law"
(Emphasis added)
It is obvious therefore that as the power of the President to make any
adaptation or moomcauon of any 1aw under clause (2J of article 3N.
was spent atter three years, .Parliament telt the necessity ot grving such
a power to the Pres1oent once again for the purpose ot bnnging the
provisiOns ot any law m force Immedrately before tht;; commencement
of the Constituuon (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, into accord
wrth tl1e provisions ot the ConstitutiOn as amended by that Act.
That
was theretore a necessary power as it was meant to make the amended
Constttutwn workable.
.t-or instance, sectron 3 (58) of the General
Clauses Act, 1 'l597, as it stood before the coming into force of the
Seventh Amendment Act, defined a "State" to mean ·•a Part A State,
a P-art B State or a Part C State." As has been stated, that definition
had Itself been substituted by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, to
make it workable, and it served the purpose, for the country had those
three types of States at that time.
But an important change was made
by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, which abolished
the distinction of Part A, Part B and Part C states and provided, inter
alia, that the territory of the country shall comprise the territories of
the States and the Union Territories specified in the First Schedule.
The definition of the expression "State" as it stood before November 1,
1956, became unsuitable and misleading on the coming into force of
the Constitution (Seventh Ame.ndment) Act, 1956, from November 1,
J 956, and it will, for obvious reasons, be futile to contend that it
should have continued to be applicable for all time to come and
remained "the final definition of "State" " merely because the period of
three years provided by clause (3) (a) of article 372 of the _Constitution expired and was not extended by an amendment of that clause, or
because article 367 (I) was not amended by the Seventh Amendment
Act "to say that adaptations made in the General Clauses Act otherwise than those made under article 372(2) would be applicable to the
interpretation of the Constitution."
The High Court also erred in
thinking that such "abstention seems to be deliberate."
On the other
hand, it is quite clear from the fact that Parliament inserted article
372A by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, that . it
was aware that the power of adaption under article 372(2) had come
to an end, and was alive to the necessity of giving a similar power of
adapting_ the laws once again to the President for the purposes of
bringing the provisions of any law in force in the country immediately
before the commencement of that Act "into accord" with the provisions
of the Constitution,
It is therefore futile to contend that the definition
of the expression "State" which was applicable upto November 1, 1956,
remained the final definition for all time to come.
That view is
incorrect, for it overlooks or ignores the anxiety of the Parliament to
remove any such misapprehension by inserting article 372A. It was
a special provision, and it was meant to serve the purpose of making
tl1e Seventh Amendment Act workab!e.
As has been held by this
Court in·Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v, Shri Gurudas-
... 1
UNION V. P. K. JAIN (Shinghal, J.)
171
mal and others(1), article 372A gave a fresh power to the President
)--
which was equal and analogous to the power under article 372(2).
It follows therefore that, as and from November 1,
1956, when
the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, came into torce,
the President had the power to adapt the laws for the purpose of bring-
; ,. ing the provisions of any law in force in India into accord with the
provisions of the Constitution. It was under that power that the President issued the Adaptation of Laws (No_ lf Order, 1956, which, as
has been shown, substituted a new clause (58) in section 3 of the
General Clauses Act providing, inter alla, that the expression "State"
shall, as respects any period after the commencement of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, mean "a State specified in the
First Schedule to the Constitution and shall include a Union Territory."
It cannot be said with any justification that there was anything repugnant in the subject or context to make that definition inapplicable.
Bv virtue of article 372A(l) of the Constitution, it was that definition
of the expression "State" which had effect from the 1st day of November, 1956, and the Constitution expressly provided that it could "not
be questioned in any court of law." The High Court therefore went
wrong in taking a contrary view and in holding that "Union Territories
are not 'States' for purposes of Article 312(1)" of the Constitution and
the preamble to the Act of 1951." That was why the -High Court
erred in holdinf!; that the definition of "State" in the Cadre Rules was
J
;.ultra vires the AU India Services Act, 1951 and the Constitution, and
that the Union Territories Cadre of the Service was "not common to
the Union and the States" within the meaning of article 312(1) of the
Constitution, and that the Central Government could not make the
Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 in consultation
with the State Governments as there were no such governments in the
Union Territories.
The High Court has held further that section 3 of the All India
Services Act, 1951 and rule 5 of the Cadre Rules have been contravened bv the "direct appointment of respondents 2 to 37 to the Union
Territories Cadre and by their being not recruited first to the IAS."
But no such ground appears to h,ave been taken in the writ petition.
Moreover, the validity or rule 4(5) of the R~cruitriient Rules, which
,..- rontained a TWn-nbstrmte clause providing for recruitment to t11e Joint
•
Cadre of the Union Territories on its initial constitution by such method
~1.f: the Central Government may, after consultation with
the Union
Pnblic Service Commission prescribe was not examined by the Hhrh
Court.
·
·
~-· - -- -
,.
For the reasons mentioned above. the appeals are allowed.
the
impuQ"ned judgment of the Hi~h Court datect September 25, 1969 is
Ret aside and the writ petitions are dismissed.
There will however be
no orders as to tl)e costs.
M.R
Appeals allowed,
(t) (1970] 3 S.C.R. 881.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H