# UNION OF INDIA v. DR. R. D. NANJIAH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-15
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELT.ATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1744 of 1968
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, P. N. Shjnghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-dr-r-d-nanjiah-and-ors-6981
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956) s. 115-0pportunity to hear after
final inter-State seniority list is prepared after giving opportunity to aggrieved officers to make representations against provisional list-If should be given.
·
Final Jist, when may be set aside'. by Court.
A
B
( 1) When a provisional inter-State ~eniority list is prepared for integrating
services after States re-organisation, there is a possibility of somo mistakes occurC
ring about liie facts of a case or in the application of the relevant statute or rules
or executive directions governing seniority. ·It would, therefore, .be quite fair to
give the person affected an opportunity to _be heard against the proposed list
before it is made final under s. 115, State Reorganisation Act, 1956, so that, any
p066ible mistakes, either in the facts relating to his case or in the law or rule
applied with regard to the proposed assignment of a place·to him in the seniority
list may be rectified.
But, once he had that opportunity, it cannot be said that
he should have a further opportunity against even a final seniority list, for then
D
such a list would not really be final but will only be provisional or preliminary.
[830 C-DJ
(2) But, even a fina!Hst, if it is prepared contrary to the rules applicable or is
vitia!OO on some ground showing that a condition precedent to the finalisation of
•
the list is absent, or a particular decision is malafide or arrived at on totally irrelevant or extraneous considerations, such a final list could be declared invalid by
the Court. [830· GJ
In the present case, the officer was not satisfied with the position given to him
E
in the final seniority list. But, since he had an opportunity under the integration
rules of the State for ·fil_ing objections against the preliminary provisional list, he
cannot urge that he should be heard again after the final list was prepared.
[829 AJ
He cannot claim to have a say against the final list on the analogy of a secend
opportunity to show cause against a proposed punishment in a departmental enquiry, because, no element of punishment is involved in preparing either a pro-
'l'isional or a final sell.iority list. [830 BJ
F
He is not entitled ta any relief because he had not made out in his petition
· to the Court any< of the grounds on which a final list can be assailed. [831 GJ
U11io11 of India v. G. M. Sftankariah & Ors. etc. (S.L.R. 1969 p. J) (C As.
Nos. 1439 & 1446 of 1967-decided on• 16-10-1968) explainea.
Unio11 of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186 @ 202 and
Union of India v. G. R. Prabluivalkar & Ors, A.LR. 1973 SC 2102 at 2106, fol·
lowed.
CIVIL APPELT.ATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.
1744 of
1968.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
14-6-1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 440/65).
c
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Girish Chandra, for the Appellant.
H
Narayana Nettar, for Respondents 4 and 5.
3- !338SCT/76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
l 1977) 1 S.C.R.

## Text

827
UNION OF INDIA
v.
DR. R. D. NANJIAH AND ORS.
October 15, 1976
[M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJ.]
States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956) s. 115-0pportunity to hear after
final inter-State seniority list is prepared after giving opportunity to aggrieved officers to make representations against provisional list-If should be given.
·
Final Jist, when may be set aside'. by Court.
A
B
( 1) When a provisional inter-State ~eniority list is prepared for integrating
services after States re-organisation, there is a possibility of somo mistakes occurC
ring about liie facts of a case or in the application of the relevant statute or rules
or executive directions governing seniority. ·It would, therefore, .be quite fair to
give the person affected an opportunity to _be heard against the proposed list
before it is made final under s. 115, State Reorganisation Act, 1956, so that, any
p066ible mistakes, either in the facts relating to his case or in the law or rule
applied with regard to the proposed assignment of a place·to him in the seniority
list may be rectified.
But, once he had that opportunity, it cannot be said that
he should have a further opportunity against even a final seniority list, for then
D
such a list would not really be final but will only be provisional or preliminary.
[830 C-DJ
(2) But, even a fina!Hst, if it is prepared contrary to the rules applicable or is
vitia!OO on some ground showing that a condition precedent to the finalisation of
•
the list is absent, or a particular decision is malafide or arrived at on totally irrelevant or extraneous considerations, such a final list could be declared invalid by
the Court. [830· GJ
In the present case, the officer was not satisfied with the position given to him
E
in the final seniority list. But, since he had an opportunity under the integration
rules of the State for ·fil_ing objections against the preliminary provisional list, he
cannot urge that he should be heard again after the final list was prepared.
[829 AJ
He cannot claim to have a say against the final list on the analogy of a secend
opportunity to show cause against a proposed punishment in a departmental enquiry, because, no element of punishment is involved in preparing either a pro-
'l'isional or a final sell.iority list. [830 BJ
F
He is not entitled ta any relief because he had not made out in his petition
· to the Court any< of the grounds on which a final list can be assailed. [831 GJ
U11io11 of India v. G. M. Sftankariah & Ors. etc. (S.L.R. 1969 p. J) (C As.
Nos. 1439 & 1446 of 1967-decided on• 16-10-1968) explainea.
Unio11 of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186 @ 202 and
Union of India v. G. R. Prabluivalkar & Ors, A.LR. 1973 SC 2102 at 2106, fol·
lowed.
CIVIL APPELT.ATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.
1744 of
1968.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
14-6-1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 440/65).
c
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Girish Chandra, for the Appellant.
H
Narayana Nettar, for Respondents 4 and 5.
3- !338SCT/76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
l 1977) 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.-The judgment under appeal after certificate of fitness
of the case under Article 13 3 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution of India, is
very short as it purports to follow the ratio decidendi of Union of
India v. G. M. Shankariah & Ors. etc.,(t) where this Court had neld,
upon a concession by the Attorney General, that a list prepared under
Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, (hereinafter rererred to as 'the Act'), was provisional. Therefore, it was held that the
writ petition was pre-mature as the final list of officers on an integrated seniority list was still to be prepared after hearing objections.
The High Court of Mysore seems to have been under the nlisapprehension tqat the case now before us is also governed by what was
held by this Court in Shankariah's case (supra) with 'refen;1ce to an
entirely different and provisional list of Forest Officers. The case now
before us pertains to Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services of
the Mysore State in which the petitioner was given, in the final integration list, a position to which he objected. Apparently, the petitioner,
whose date of birth is given as 28th June, 1915, has retired. He is a
respondent who has not appeared before us, and, therefore, could not
be heard by us. We have, however, gone through his petition and the
affidavit filed in its support where, in paragraph 16, he states as
follows :
·
"The Mysore State Civil Service Integration Rules 1960
provide for filing objections only against the
preliminary .
provisional Inter-State Seniority List and do not
provide
any provision for filing objections or appealing against the
final Inter-State Seniority List as per Annexure 'B'. Thus
we have no other legal remedies open to us for the redressal
of our grievances and the abridgement of our fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, and, therefore, we are forced to approach this Hon'ble Court to in-·
voke the writ jurisdiction for the redressal."
It is apparent that the petitioner-respondent was claiming relief
against the final Inter-State seniority list although he was given due
opportunity to object to the provisional list.
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu,
who has looked up the departmental records, informs us
that the
petitioner was given ample opportunity to file his objections to the
preliminary list.
Now, Shankariah's case (supra) was confincd·to an admission on
behalf of the Central Government that the list before the Court was
provisional so that the petitioners before the Court on that occasion
were to get opportunities of puting forward their objections before the
final list is prepared. In the case before us, the petitioner adtnits
that the Mysore State Civil Services Integration Rules provided for
filing of objections against the preliminary
provisional
Inter-State
Seniority list.
Presumably, he had that opportunity.
Otherwise, he
would, no doubt have objected that the rules had not been complied
(\) S.L.R. 1969 p.l (C. As. Nos. 1439 & 1446 of 1967-·decidcd on 16-10-1968).
)
UNION V. R. D. · NANJIAH (Beg, J.)
82.9
with, which he did not do.
His grievance seemed to be that he was
A
not heard after the final list was prepared. We are unable to appreciate this line of attack upon the final list.
We think that the concession in Shankariah's case (supra)
was
confined to the facts of that particular case. There the list was provisional.
The most that could be urged, in the light of decisions of
this Court, is that a person whose seniority is to be determined under
B
Section 115 of the 1Act must be given an opportunity to object to
the proposed assignment of a place to him in the seniority list. As
already observed above, the petitioner had ample opportunity to do
that.
H"11ce, the principle recognised in Shankariah's case (supra)
was not applicable to such a case.
The ju<1gm.ent of the Mysore High Court was, in our opinion,
c
based on an apparent misunderstanding of Shankariah's case (supra)
and on a failure to appreciate the facts of the case of the petitionerrespondent which is now before us.
There was not reference whatsoever to any facts of the case in the order of a few lines by which the
petitioner's petition was disposed of by the High Court on
the
erroneous assumption that it was governed by
Sha11kariah's
case
(supra).
D
· As the petitioner in the High Court, who is the respondent before
us, was unrepresented, Mrs. Shymala Pappu, appearing on behalf of
Union of India, very conscientiously, took us through Union of India
& Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors.('I) from which, learned Counsel thought,
the following observations could perhaps be cited on behalf of the
petitioner-respondent (at p. 202) :
E
"It was argued by Mr. Ashoke Sen that in regard
to
both these matters the respondents have a right of representation and the final gradation list should have been published after giving them further opportunity to make a representation.
Normally speaking, we should have thought
that one opportunity for making a representation
against
the preliminary list published would have been sufficient to
F
satisfy the requirements of law. But the extent and application
of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned
within the straight-jacket of a rigid formula. The application
of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction
conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and
policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disG
closed in the particular case (See the decision of this Court
in Shri Bhagwan and Anr. v. Ram Chand & Anr. [1965] 3
SCR 218, 222.
In view of the special circumstances of
the present case we think that the respondents were entitled
to an opportunity to make a representation with regard to
the two points urged by Mr. Ashoke Sen before the final
gradation list was published. As no such opportunity was
H
furnished to the respondents with regard to these two matters
(l) (1968)S.C.R. 186 at 202.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 9771 I S.C.R.
we hold that
the combined final
gradation list dated
April 6, 1962, so far as category 6 is concerned, is ultra vires
and illegal and that part of the notification alone must be
quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari".
We think that any claim to have a say against the final list prepared,
on an analogy with the second opportunity which is afforded to a
person to be punished after arriving at a decision on the facts of a
departmental trial and proposal to inflict a particular
punishment
upon him, is quite inappropriate.
No element of punishment at all
is involved in preparing either a provisional or a final seniority list.
All that is done is that certain principles are applied in the. preparation of the list.
These principles are generally found in the rules or
executive directions which are known to or are capable of being found
out by the persons affected.
When a provisional scnioriiy list
is
prepared, there is a possibility of some mistakes occurring about tl1e
facts of a case or in the application of those rules. It would, therefore, be quite fair to give a person affected an 'opportunity to be heard
against the proposed list before it is finalised so that any possible
mistakes, either on facts irelating to his particular case or of law in
applying the rules governing seniority to those facts. may be rectified.
But, once he has had that opportunity, it cannot possibly be said that
he should have a further opportunity against even a final
seniority
Ji~t. If he was to have that opportunity the list would not really be
final but only provisional or preliminary. It will be obviously contradictory to hold it to be a final list and yet declare it subject to
modifications on further objections.
We am unable to. find any' rnle
of natural justice having such a paralysing scope.
In P. K. Roy's case (supra), the opportunity afforded was to be
given before the publication of the final list It was an opportunity
to be given before the final list was to be declared and published as
a final list.
A right to representation was recognised as existing at
time when the list was still to be considered as not :finalised presumably because some mistakes had crept in due to want of hearing on
two points. Evidently what was meant was that the publication
gave the list finality. In that particular case, the list had been prepared witl1out due regard to the particular important points which
had Jo be considered 'before finalisation.
What we have observed does not mean that, if a final list is prepared contrary to t11e rules applicable or is vitiated on some ground
showing that a condition precedent to the fin~isation of the list is
absent, it would still be inviolable (Or sacrosanct.
Even a list purporting to be final can be vitiated by non-observance of conditions
precedent. In order to establish the invalidity of the final list on
some such grounds of invalidity, those grounds have to be shown to
exist.
We find no such grounds an the case before us.
Learned Counsel for the Central Government had cited before
us Unio11 of India v. G. R. Prabhavalkar & Ol's. (') where it was
held by this Court (at p. 2106)
(I) A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 2102 at 2106.
•
l
..
...:.. .
UNJON v. R. D. NANJIAH (Beg, J.)
831
"In our opinion the contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General are well
founded.
The Central
Government, under Sec. 115 of the Act, has to detef1Wne
the principles governing equation of posts and prepare a
common gradation list by integration
of
services.
To
assist it in the task of integration of serv;ices and for
a
proper consideration of representations, the Central Government is empowered to establish Advisory Committees.
The Central Government is bound to ensure a fair
and
. cq~itable treatment to officers in the matter of integration
of services and preparation of gradation lists.
It has also
to give a full and fair opportunity to the parties affected to
mak• their representations; and the Central
Government
has also to give a proper consideration to those representations.
So Jong as the Central Government has acted properly according to the provisions of the Act, we are of the
view that a Court cannot go into the merits or otherwise of
equation of posts which is a matter within the provu!ce of
the Central Goviernment".
lt was also held there (at p. 2106) :
"It is no doubt true that the Central Government must
have due regard to the principles enunciated by it in consultation with the States for the purpose of equation of posts.
It must not only give an opportunity to the concerned
officers to make representations, but it must also give those
representations a proper consideration.
It is not within
the province of the Courts to lay down what are in the principles to be adopted for purposes of equation.
That falls
within the purview of the statute concerned and the authorities charged with such duty.
The power of the Courts is
only to see that an authority has acted properly in accordance with the statute. If that is established, the decision of
the authorities concerned will have to stand. If a particular
decision is mala fide or arrived at on totally irrelevant and
extraneous considerations, such a decision can be
interfered with by Courts.
Jn this case, no ma/a /ides
are
alleged."
We find that, a~ was the case of the petitioner in Prabhavalkar's
case (supra), the petitioner-respondent Dr. R. D.
Nanjiah,
and
others similarly placed respondents before us have been unable to
make out, in their petitions, any grounds for interference with the
final list. We, therefore, allow this appeal, and set aside the judgment
and order of the Mysore High Court.
The parties .will bear their
own costs.
VP.S .
Appeal allowed.
B
c
D
E
G