# STATE OF MYSORE v. ff,. PAPANNA GOWDA & ANR. ETC

- **Citation:** [1971] 2 S.C.R. 831
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-11-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1868 to 1882 of 1969
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, G. K. Mitter, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-mysore-v-ff-papanna-gowda-anr-etc-5128
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of Iiidia, 1950, Art. 311-Compulsory transfer from
Govemmeru Service to Unlvtrsity-lf operates as removal from service.
The Univenitf _of Aa:ricultural S.ciences Act, 1963, was passed by the
Mysore State LeliJlature, to establish a University for the development of
alricultural 'ind allied sciences in the State. Under 1,; 7(4) of tbe Act,
the control and m11111ement of such reaearch institutions of tbe depart·
ment of 181'fCUlture 11 the State Government mlpt by order specify, were
10 be transferred 'to Ille· University aa and from. thci date s~ifted; 11t1d,"
under 1ub ... (5), every person employed In such an institution, were, as
from the speclfted date, to become an employee of the University on such
D
terms and conditions as might be determined by the Sta~ Government in
consultation with the Board of Regents ot the University.
E
The respondent was holding a civil post under the State Government.
having been appointed as a chemical assistant in the Agricultural' Research
Institute, Mandya, in the department of agriculture of the State. In 1965,
the control an!l management of the Institute was transferred to the Univer·
sity, by a notification under the Act.
On the question whether there was a removal of the respondent from
a civil post in contravention of Art. 311,
HELD : Whether the prospects of the respondent were or were not
prejudicially affected is irrelevant. For better or for worse, the notification
resulted in the extinction of his status as a civil servant, and hence, his
compulsory transfer to the University was void. (83~ A, FJ
A.mu/ya Kumar Talukdar v. Union of India,
I.L.R.
13 Punj. 781,
distinguished.

## Text

A
.B
c
831
STATE OF MYSORE
v.
ff,. PAPANNA GOWDA & ANR. ETC.
November 24, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
Constitution of Iiidia, 1950, Art. 311-Compulsory transfer from
Govemmeru Service to Unlvtrsity-lf operates as removal from service.
The Univenitf _of Aa:ricultural S.ciences Act, 1963, was passed by the
Mysore State LeliJlature, to establish a University for the development of
alricultural 'ind allied sciences in the State. Under 1,; 7(4) of tbe Act,
the control and m11111ement of such reaearch institutions of tbe depart·
ment of 181'fCUlture 11 the State Government mlpt by order specify, were
10 be transferred 'to Ille· University aa and from. thci date s~ifted; 11t1d,"
under 1ub ... (5), every person employed In such an institution, were, as
from the speclfted date, to become an employee of the University on such
D
terms and conditions as might be determined by the Sta~ Government in
consultation with the Board of Regents ot the University.
E
The respondent was holding a civil post under the State Government.
having been appointed as a chemical assistant in the Agricultural' Research
Institute, Mandya, in the department of agriculture of the State. In 1965,
the control an!l management of the Institute was transferred to the Univer·
sity, by a notification under the Act.
On the question whether there was a removal of the respondent from
a civil post in contravention of Art. 311,
HELD : Whether the prospects of the respondent were or were not
prejudicially affected is irrelevant. For better or for worse, the notification
resulted in the extinction of his status as a civil servant, and hence, his
compulsory transfer to the University was void. (83~ A, FJ
A.mu/ya Kumar Talukdar v. Union of India,
I.L.R.
13 Punj. 781,
distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeals Nos. 1868
to 1882 of 1969.
G
Appeals from the judgment 31nd order dated July 9, 10, 1968
of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1776, 2108,
2109, 2111, 2112, 2272, 2273, 2275, 2385, 2386, 2390, 2395
and 2396 of 1966 and 728 and 990 of 1967.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, S. S. Javali and S. P.
H Nayar, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
M. Mama Jois and R. B. Datar, for respondent No. 1 (in
C.As. Nos. 1868 to 1871 and 1874 to 1881of1969).
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971 ]2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMitter, J,
The State of Mysore has come up in appeal from
a co=on judgment of the High Court at Bangalore disposing
of a ,number of writ petitions and holding void the COm{>ulsory
transfer of the respondents herein to the Agricultural Umversity
under the provisions of the University of Agricultural Sciences
Act, 1963.
As the same question arises in all these appeals it will be
sufficient to state the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 1969
A
B
in which one H. Papanna Gowda is .the respon~t. The said
respondent was appointed on January 7, 1959 as an agricultural demonstrator in the Mysore Civil Service.
His appointC
ment was as a 'local candidate' which under the Mysore Civil
Service Rules means a person appointed not in accordance with
the rules of recruitment.
His services were however regularised
when he was selected by .the Public Service Commission for appointment tO that post on August 27, 1959. By an order dated
April 4, 1964 he was transferred and posted as a Chemical o
Assistant of the Sugarcane Research Station Mandya, in the
department of agriculture.
When he was· thus employed, a law
made by the State Legislature called the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
came into force on April 24, 1964.
Before the High Court the
respondents to these appeals challenged the vires of s. 7 (5) of
the Act and a notification issued thereunder.
The preamble to the Act shows that it. was an Act to establish and incorporate a University for the development. of agriculture, animal husbandry and allied sciences in the State of
Mysore.
Under s. 3 ( 2) the University was to be a body corpoE
rate having perpetual succession and a co=on seal.
The powers
F
'given under s. 6 of the Act enabled it inter alia to create administrative, ministerial and other posts and to appoint persons to
such posts.
Under s. 7 ( 1) subject to the conditions therein
mentioned several agricultural and veterinary colleges were disafliliated from the Karnatak
University
or the University of
Mysore and were to be maintained by the i!lew University as conG
stituent colleges.
The control and management of these colleges
were to stand transferred to the Agricultural University and all
its properties and assets and liabilities and obligations of the State
Government in relation thereto were to stand transferred to, vest
in, or devolve upon the said University.
Under sub-s. ( 4) of
s. 7 the control and management of such research Mid educational
institutions of the Department of Agriculture, the Departmen.t of
H
Animal Husb¥tdry and the Departr,1ent of Fis,heries of the State
Government were, as and from such date as the State Government
MYSORE v. H. P. GOWDA (Mitter, J.)
833
A
might by order opedfy, to be transferred to the University and
thereupon all the properties and assets and liabilities and obligations of the St~te Government in relation to such institutions were
to stand transferred to, vest \n, or devolve upon the University.
Omitting the proviso which is not relevant for our purpose, sub-s.
B
( 5) provided :
"E"1ery person employed in any of the colleges
specified in sub-section ( 1) or in any of the institutions
referred to in sub-section ( 4) immediate before the appointed day or the date specified in the order under sub-
·section ( 4), as the case may be, shall, as from
the
c
appointed day or the specified date, become an employee of the University on such terms and conditions
as may be determined by the State Government in consultation with the Board : "
D
The Board has been defined in section 2 ·clause ( 3) as the
Board of Regents of the University.
By notification dated September 29, 19a5 the control and
management of a large number of research and educational institutions were transferred to the University with effect from October 1,
1965. The Agricultural Research Institute Mandya
where the respondent was worqng was one such institution. Not
E
liking the change which his future prospects were likely to undergo as a result of the notification, the respondent presented a writ
petition seeking a declaration that sub-ss. ( 4) and (5) of s. 7
of the Act were invalid aind for a further declaration that he
continued to be. a civil servant llinder the State Government.
To
put in brief the argument on this head was that he had been
F
removed from a civil post under the State in contravention of the
provisions of Art. 311.
A further argument was put up that the respondent had been
subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as persons who had
been appoiinted in the same manner as himsell and later in point
of time than himself had been retained in the service of the State
G thereby infringing articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
It is not necessary to deal with the second point as the appellant, in our op\nion, must fail on the first.
There can be no
dispute-as indeed the learned Solicitor-General was constrained
to admit-that the respondent and others who had filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the notification ceased to
H hold the civil posts which they held under the State of Mysore
at the time when th~ notification was issued if it was to have full
force and effect.
Whether the prospects of the respondent were
l 1-L694Sup.Gl/71
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
or were not to be prejudicially affected if he was to become an A
employee of the University is not in point. However the learned
Solicitor-General drew our attenti<¥1 to paragraph 17 of the
counter affidavit to the writ petition filed in the High Court where
it was stated that the terms and conditions ·of transfer as agreed to
by the Governmeint and the Univernity provided inter alia for the
following :-
B
. (1 ) Every employee of the Government on his transfer to
the University shall enjoy the same pay scale.
(2) He was to be eligible for pensionary benefits in the same
manner as he had while he w.as serving the Goyernment.
( 3 ) His claimS for hiRb.er pay scales or higher positions under
C
the University shall be deemed to be on a pref~tlal bells le
comparison with others, provided the qualifications and experi·
. ence were equal; and
( 4) Every e.mployeee of the Government on his transfer to
the University was to be protected to the extent that the ·terms
and conditions of his service ·.mder the Uiniversity would not be
D
altered to his detriment.
We are riot here concerned with the question as to whether
for all practical purposes the respondent was not to be a loser
as a result of the transfer.
Evidently the respondent held the
view that as a civil servant of the State of Mysore the prospects
E
of promotion to higher posts with better scales of pay were
greater in the service of the State with its manifold activities in
various departments. For better or for worse, the no1tification
resulted in extinction of his status as a civil servant.
The learned Solicitor ..General sought to rely on a judgment
of the Punjab High Court in Amulya Kumar Talukdar v. Union
F
of India and others(') a case which was considered by the High
CciQ!1 of Mysore,
~n aid of his contention that the transfer of
the. kind effected in this case had been held to be valid by the
Punjab High Court.
The High Court at Bangalore went into
the question rather elaborately and noted that there were many
differences between the provisions of the Indian !institute of Tech·
G
nology (Kharagpur) Act 1956, the Act impugned in the Punjab
High. Court and the Agricultural University Act of 1963. Jin
the Punjab case the petitioner had initially been appointed by the
Director, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur as a peon.
As a result of the Act of 1956 the Institution declared to be
cm:e of national importance, was constituted under the Act
H
providing inter alia that th€i employees who were working in the
Institute be.fore wei:e to hold office or service thereafter upon the
(I) tL.R. 13 punj, 781.
A
B
c
D
MYSORE v. H. P. GOWDA (Mitter, I.)
83$
same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privi··
leges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other
matters as they would have held the same on the date of commencement of the Act as if the Act had not been passed. In
the case before us the Act provides by sub-s. ( 5) of s. 7 that
the terms and conditions of the Government employeec imme--
diately before the appointed day or the date specified in the notificatioo were to be such as might be determined by the State
Government in consultation with the Board. The learned Judge,
of the Punjab High Court on the facts of that case found it unnecessary to examine the argument whether the assent given by
the President to the Indian Institute of Technology Bill had the
effect of terminating the status of the petitioners as Government
servants by the President as also the argument raised on their
behalf that their lien had been tenninated under the Fundamental Rules without their consent. The Punjab decision cannot
therefore apply to the case as prewnted before us.
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
There will be one set of hearing fee.
V.P.S.
Appeals dismissed.