TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of in Writ Petition No 1416/67. It had directed the State of Mysore to consider the cases of the petitioners with those of Respondents 3 to 8 for promotion before it under the Mysore State Accounts Services (Recruitment) Rules 1959, made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. notified on 26-5-1959. 2. The two petitioners before the High Court, who are respondents before us, had joined the Accounts' services in the Comptroller's office of the former Mysore State as first and second Division Clerks. Consequent upon the abolition of the Comptroller's office the petitioners began working as Accounts Clerks under the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. On 31st October, 1953, a Divisional Accounts' Cadre, in the scale of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same nature, the recruiting authorities were the same, the standards observed and tests prescribed for entry into the formerly separate units were identical. The result of the Rules of 1959 was that an artificial distinction based on mere separate control had been abolished so that both units came under the legally single administrative control of the Accounts' Department incharge of the Controller of State Accounts. The petitioners became absorbed in what was legally a single permanent service regulated by uniform rules. 4. After examining the cases of the petitioners that, in the matter of promotions, they were discriminated against simply because they had worked in the P.W.D. Accounts Unit, which had ceased to exist, the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the first time in this Court. We do not find any indication that the point, even if such a position was taken on behalf of the State, was argued at all before the Mysore High Court. The submission that the High Court had wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners were promoted and appointed under the rules of the integrated service although the point was argued before the Mysore High Court, is not borne out even by any assertion in the application made by the appellant under Article 132 and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India before the Mysore High Court. Our attention was invited to a paragraph in that application where it was submitted that the High Court should have held that the answering respondents were placed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to merit or seniority, or educational qualifications, could justify the differences in promotional chances. We think that it had rightly declared the purported amendments in the rules of 1959, which sought to disintegrate a service which had been integrated, to be ultra vires. Such amendments made for the purpose of justifying the illegal promotions made, in the teeth of the protection conferred by Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India upon Indian citizens in Government service, could not be upheld. 8. The High Court rightly relied on State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya (1966)IILLJ147SC to hold that the power of making rules relating to recruitment and conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reached the conclusion that the historical and other special reasons existing, on the facts of that particular case, justified the difference made in promotional chances of the teachers coming from two different sources. We think that Wadhwa's case was decided on its own facts, the most important of which was that, after full consideration of the pros and cons of various alternatives before it, the Government concerned had come to the conclusion that the provincialised cadre must be gradually and not suddenly eliminated. In that case, there was no actual formal decision to integrate the two branches 'as is the case before us. The rules before us levy no doubt whatsoever, as we have already pointed out, that a complete integration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the classes to be considered are really different, inequality of opportunity in. promotional chances may be justifiable. On the contrary, if the facts of a particular case disclose no such rational distinction between members of what is found to be really a single class no class distinctions can be made in selecting the best. Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution must be held to be violated when members of one class are not even considered for promotion. The case before us falls, in our opinion, in the latter type of cases where the, difference in promotional opportunities of those who were wrongly divided into two classes for this purpose only could not be justified on any rational grounds. Learned Counsel for the State was unab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
