{"id":126895,"date":"1980-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980"},"modified":"2016-08-06T10:48:32","modified_gmt":"2016-08-06T05:18:32","slug":"accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980","title":{"rendered":"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 783, \t\t 1981 SCR (2) 155<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nACCOUNTANT GENERAL & ANR. ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. DORAISWAMY & ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR  783\t\t  1981 SCR  (2) 155\n 1981 SCC  (4)\t93\n CITATOR INFO :\n C&F\t    1989 SC1233\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India 1950,  Articles 148(5)  and 309-\nScope of.\n     Comptroller and  Auditor-General-Functions\t of-Head  of\nIndian Audit  and Accounts Department-persons serving in the\ndepartment-Whether holding office  exclusively in connection\nwith  the   affairs  of\t  the  Union-Regulation\t  of   their\nrecruitment and\t conditions of\tservice-Whether\t within\t the\ndomain of the President under Article 309 Proviso\n     Indian  Audit   &\tAccounts   Department\t(Subordinate\nAccounts  Service   &  Subordinate  Railway  Audit  service)\nService Rules  1974, Rules  1(2)  and  10-Whether  can\thave\nretrospective operation-Rule  1(2) whether ultra vires-Power\nconferred on  Comptroller &  Auditor-General under  Rule 10-\nWhether\t violates the doctrine against excessive delegation.\n     Comptroller  &  Auditor-General's\tManual\tof  Standing\nOrders para  143-whether    could be amended by departmental\ninstructions.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In 1921 the Auditor-General, as the administrative head\nof the\tIndian Audit Department, inserted Article 1666A by a\ncircular No. 1757-E\/1129 dated 18th April 1921 giving weight\nto the\tlength of  service as  Upper Division  Clerks in the\nfixation of  seniority in  the Subordinate Accounts Service.\nIn the\tAudit  Code  prepared  subsequently,  Article  1666A\nappeared  as  Article  52.  Thereafter,\t in  the  Manual  of\nStanding Orders\t issued\t by  the  Auditor-General  in  1938,\nArticle\t 52   found  expression\t  as  paragraph\t 143.  By  a\ncorrection slip\t dated 27th  July, 1956, the Comptroller and\nAuditor-General removed the factor of weightage on the basis\nof length of service in the determination of seniority.\n     The respondents in the appeals, who had entered service\nin the\tOffice of  the Accountant General, as Upper Division\nClerks,\t appeared   in\tthe   Subordinate  Accounts  Service\nExamination and\t passed the  examination  held\tin  November\n1969, and  were promoted  shortly thereafter.  They  claimed\nseniority on  the basis\t that their length of service in the\ninferior post should be taken into account, and rested their\nclaim on  paragraph 143\t of the Manual of Standing Orders as\nit stood  prior to  its amendment  by the correction slip of\n27th July  1956. The  claim was\t rejected by the Comptroller\nand Auditor-General\n     A writ  petition filed  by them  in the  High Court was\nallowed by  a Single  Judge and the judgment was affirmed by\nthe Appellate Bench of the High Court.\n     The Accountant-General and the Comptroller and Auditor-\nGeneral appealed  to this  Court. During the pendency of the\nappeals, the President enacted\n156\nthe  Indian   Audit  and  Accounts  Department\t(Subordinate\nAccounts  Service   &  Subordinate  Railway  Audit  Service)\nService Rules,\t1974. They  were deemed\t to have  come\tinto\nforce on  27th July,  1956. These  rules purported  to\tgive\nstatutory recognition  to the  amendment of paragraph 143 by\nthe Comptroller\t and Auditor-General.  Rule 6  provided\t for\nappointments to the service and Rule 7 dealt with seniority.\nRule 9\tprovided that  in matters  not specifically provided\nfor the\t rules, regulations,  orders or\t instructions of the\nCentral Civil Services as applicable to the Indian Audit and\nAccounts Department  would be  applicable. Rule 10 empowered\nthe Comptroller\t and Auditor-General  to  issue\t general  or\nspecial instructions for giving effect to the Rules.\n     In the  appeals, the  respondents assailed the validity\nof the\tRules of  1974 and  the amendment  made in paragraph\n143, contending\t that the Rules are invalid as clause (5) of\nArticle 148  does not  permit the retrospective enactment of\nrules made thereunder, that the specific rules affecting the\nseniority  of\tthe  respondents   are\tinvalid\t because  in\nentrusting power  to the  Comptroller and Auditor-General to\nissue orders and instructions in his discretion the doctrine\nagainst excessive  delegation of  legislative power has been\nviolated, and  that paragraph  143 possesses the status of a\nstatutory rule\tand, therefore,\t the amendment\tattempted by\nthe correction slip has no legal effect upon it.\n     In the  connected writ  petitions, the  petitioners who\nhad passed the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination were\npromoted to the Service after 1956 some before the enactment\nof the\tRules of  1974 and some thereafter. It was contended\non their  behalf that  the fixation of seniority having been\nmade  by   Rule\t 7(2)  to  depend  on  the  order  in  which\nappointments to\t the service  were made under Rule 6 depends\non an  arbitrary power\tconferred  on  the  Comptroller\t and\nAuditor-General to pass orders and instructions.\n     On the question whether the respondents are entitled to\nclaim  fixation\t  of  their  seniority\tin  the\t Subordinate\nAccounts Service  after taking\tinto account their length of\nservice as Upper Division Clerks.\n     Allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petitions,\n^\n     HELD: 1. There is nothing in the language of clause (5)\nof Article  148, to  indicate that  the rules framed therein\nwere intended  to serve\t until Parliamentary legislation was\nenacted. All  that the\tclause says is that the rules framed\nwould be  subject to  the provisions of the Constitution and\nof any\tlaw made  by Parliament.  Clause (5)  of Article 148\nconfers power  on the  President to  frame  rules  operating\nprospectively  only.   The  rules   of\t1974   cannot\thave\nretrospective operation.  Sub-rule  (2)\t of  rule  1,  which\ndeclares that they will be deemed to have come into force on\n27th July, 1956 is therefore ultra vires. [163B-C]\n     B.S. Vadera  v. Union  of India  & Ors.<\/a> [1968] 3 S.C.R.\n575 referred to.\n     2.\t The  Comptroller  and\tAuditor-General\t is  a\thigh\nranking constitutional authority, and can be expected to act\naccording  to\tthe  needs   of\t the   service\tand  without\narbitrariness. He  is the  constitutional head of one of the\nmost important\tdepartments of the State, and is expected to\nknow what the depart-\n157\nment requires and how best to fulfil those requirements. The\npower conferred\t on him under the Rules does not violate the\nprinciple against excessive delegation. [165C-D]\n     3. Paragraph  143 in  the\tManual\tof  Standing  Orders\nremained  throughout   a   departmental\t  instruction\tand,\ntherefore, could  be amended by the departmental instruction\ncontained in  the correction  slip issued by the Comptroller\nand Auditor-General in 1956. [164F]\n     4. There is a clear dichotomy in the power conferred by\nArticle 309,  a division  of power between the Parliament or\nPresident, as the case may be, on the one side and the State\nLegislature or Governor on the other. The division is marked\nby the\tcircumstance that  under Article  309  services\t and\nposts in  connection with the affairs of the Union are dealt\nwith by\t a separate authority from the services and posts in\nconnection with\t the affairs  of a  State. That dichotomy is\nnot possible in the power employed for appointing persons in\nthe Indian Audit and Accounts Department and for prescribing\ntheir conditions of service. [160H-161A]\n     5. The authority vested in the Comptroller and Auditor-\nGeneral ranges over functions associated with the affairs of\nthe States.  It is a single office, and the Indian Audit and\nAccounts Department, which it heads, is a single department.\nThey cannot  be said to be concerned with the affairs of the\nUnion  exclusively.  Consequently,  the\t regulation  of\t the\nrecruitment and\t conditions of service of persons serving in\nthe Indian  Audit and Accounts Department cannot be regarded\nas a  matter falling  within the  domain  of  the  President\nwithin the terms of the proviso to Article 309. [162 C]\n     B. Shiva  Rao, \"The  Framing of India's Constitution: A\nStudy\" [1968] Chap. 12, pp. 414-417 referred to.\n     6. It cannot be said that persons serving in the Indian\nAudit  and   Accounts  Department   are\t holding  office  in\nconnection with\t the affairs  of the Union exclusively. [161\nC]\n     7. The  power contained in clause (5) of Article 148 is\nnot related  to the  power under the proviso to Article 309.\nThe two powers are separate and distinct from each other and\nare not\t complementary to  one another. The reference to the\nproviso under Article 309 in the recital of the Notification\npublishing the\tRules of  1974 is  meaningless and  must  be\nignored. [162D-E]\n     8. Having\tregard\tto  the\t provision  determining\t the\nfixation of  seniority under  the  Rules  of  1974  and\t the\nposition obtaining  thereafter, none  of the  petitioners in\nthe writ petitions can claim the benefit of weightage on the\nbasis of length of service. [165A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 1584-
\n1588 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the  Judgment and Order
\ndated 6th  August, 1973\t of the\t Madras High  Court in\tWrit
\nAppeal Nos. 13 to 17 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n158<\/span>
\n     Writ Petition Nos. 357 of 1979 and 4367 of 1978.
\n\t   (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
\n     K. Parasaran,  Soli. General,  N. Nettar  and  Miss  A.
\nSubhashini for the Appellants in all appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     T.S. Krishnamurthy\t Iyer, H. B. Dattar, A. K.Srivastava
\nand T. P. Sunderarajan for the Petitioners in WPs. Nos. 4367
\nof 1978 & 357 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     T.S.  Krishnamurthy   Iyer,  Vineet   Kumar  and\tA.K.
\nSrivastava for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     PATHAK, J.-These  appeals, by  special leave, raise the
\nquestion whether  the  respondents  are\t entitled  to  claim
\nfixation of  their seniority  in  the  Subordinate  Accounts
\nService after taking into account their length of service as
\nUpper Division\tClerks. The  respondents entered  service in
\nthe Office  of the  Accountant General,\t Tamil Nadu as Upper
\nDivision Clerks.  They appeared\t in the Subordinate Accounts
\nService Examination  but it  was  only\tafter  a  number  of
\nattempts that  they succeeded  in passing.  They passed\t the
\nexamination held in November, 1969 and were promoted shortly
\nthereafter. They  claimed seniority  on the basis that their
\nlength of  service in the inferior post should be taken into
\naccount, and  rested their  claim on  paragraph 143  of\t the
\nManual of  Standing Orders  issued by  the  Comptroller\t and
\nAuditor-General as  it\tstood  before  its  amendment  by  a
\ncorrection slip\t of 27th  July, 1956.  The  correction\tslip
\nremoved the  factor of\tweightage on  the basis of length of
\nservice in  the determination  of seniority.  The claim\t was
\nrejected by  the Comptroller  and  Auditor-General.  A\twrit
\npetition filed\tby them\t in the\t High Court  of\t Madras\t was
\nallowed by  a learned  Single Judge,  and his  judgment\t was
\naffirmed by  an appellate  Bench, of the High Court. Against
\nthe judgment of the appellate Bench, the Accountant General,
\nTamil Nadu  and the  Comptroller  and  Auditor-General\thave
\nappealed to  this Court,  and those  appeals are  pending as
\nCivil Appeals Nos. 1584 to 1588 of 1973. During the pendency
\nof those  appeals the President enacted the Indian Audit and
\nAccounts  Department   (Subordinate   Accounts\t Service   &
\nSubordinate  Railway  Audit  Service)  Service\tRules,\t1974
\n(referred to  hereinafter as “the Rules of 1974”). The Rules
\nof  1974  purport  to  give  statutory\trecognition  to\t the
\namendment of  paragraph 143  by the Comptroller and Auditor-
\nGeneral. The validity of the Rules of 1974 and the amendment
\nmade in paragraph 143 are assailed by the respondents in the
\ninstant appeals.\n<\/p>\n
159<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Rules\tof 1974\t have been enacted by the President.
\nThey are  deemed to have come into force on 27th July, 1956,
\nwhich has been defined, for the purposes of the Rules as the
\n“appointed  day”.  The\tSubordinate  Accounts  Service\t(the
\n“Service”) includes  members  appointed\t to  it\t before\t the
\nappointed day  as well\tas persons  recruited to  it  in  or
\nbefore that  day. Rule\t5 provides that recruitment shall be
\nmade by direct recruitment in accordance with, the orders or
\ndirections issued  by the  Comptroller\tand  Auditor-General
\nfrom time to time and also by promotion. Rule 6 provides:\n<\/p>\n
     “6. Appointments:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Appointments to the Service shall be made from the list
\n     prepared in accordance with the orders and instructions
\n     issued by the Comptroller and Auditor-General from time
\n     to time  and applicable  at the  time of appointment to
\n     the Service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule 7 deals with seniority, and declares:\n<\/p>\n
     “7. Seniority:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1) The  seniority inter-se of the persons appointed to
\n     the service before the appointed day shall be regulated
\n     by the orders or instructions issued by the Comptroller
\n     and Auditor-General  as were  in force  at the relevant
\n     time before such day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) The  seniority-inter-se of the persons appointed to
\n     the Service  on or\t after the appointed day shall be in
\n     the order\tin which  the appointments  are made  to the
\n     service in accordance with rule 6.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that  a direct recruit shall on appointment to
\n     the Service  rank senior  to all officiating persons in
\n     the service (excluding a direct recruit) passing in the
\n     same    departmental    examination    or\t  subsequent
\n     departmental examinations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided further that the seniority of a person who had
\n     declined the  appointment to  the Service\tbut  who  is
\n     subsequently  appointed   to  the\t Service  shall\t  be
\n     determined with  reference to  the\t date  on  which  he
\n     assumed charge of the post in the cadre.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     By virtue\tof  Rule  9,  in  matters  not\tspecifically
\nprovided for  in the  Rules, every  person appointed  to the
\nService is  governed by\t the rules,  regulations,  orders or
\ninstructions made  or issued in respect of the Central Civil
\nServices as applicable to the Indian Audit and Accounts
\n160<\/span>
\nDepartment. Rule  10 empowers  the Comptroller\tand Auditor-
\nGeneral to issue, from time to time, such general or special
\ninstructions or\t orders as  he\tmay  consider  necessary  or
\nexpedient for the purpose of giving, effect to the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents  have raised two contentions. The first
\nis that\t the Rules  are invalid as clause (5) of Art. 148 to
\nwhich alone,  it is  said, they\t must be  ascribed, does not
\npermit the retrospective enactment of rules made thereunder.
\nThe other  contention is  that the  specific rules affecting
\nthe seniority  of the  respondents are\tin valid be cause in
\nentrusting power  to the  Comptroller and Auditor-General to
\nissue orders and instructions in his discretion the doctrine
\nagainst excessive  delegation of  legislative power has been
\nviolated
\n     Taking the first contention first, it may be noted that
\nthe Rules  of 1974  purport, according to the recital in the
\nNotification dated  4th November,  1974 publishing  them, to
\nhave been  made by  the President “in exercise of the powers
\nconferred by  the proviso to Art. 309 and clause (5) of Art.
\n148 of\tthe Constitution  and after  consultation  with\t the
\nComptroller and\t Auditor-General of  India”. The respondents
\nsay that  the only provision of the Constitution under which
\nthose Rules  could be made is clause (5) of Art. 148, and we
\nshould ignore  reference to the proviso to Art. 309. If that
\nis done,  they urge,  there will  be  no  justification\t for
\nholding that  the Rules\t of 1974  can be given retrospective
\noperation. Unlike  the proviso\tto Art.\t 309, it  is pointed
\nout, clause (5) of Art. 148 does not permit the enactment of
\nretrospectively\t operating   rules.  We\t  think\t  that\t the
\nrespondents are right.\n<\/p>\n
     Article 309 provides for legislation by the appropriate
\nLegislature to\tregulate the  recruitment and  conditions of
\nservice of persons appointed to public services and posts in
\nconnection with\t the affairs  of the  Union or of any State,
\nand the\t proviso  to  Art.  309\t declares  that\t until\tsuch
\nlegislation is\tenacted by  the appropriate  Legislature the
\nPresident is  empowered in the case of services and posts in
\nconnection with\t the affairs  of the Union, and the Governor
\nof a  State in\tthe case of services and posts in connection
\nwith the  affairs of  a State,\tto make rules regulating the
\nrecruitment  and   the\tconditions  of\tservice\t of  persons
\nappointed to  such services  and posts.\t There\tis  a  clear
\ndichotomy in  the power conferred by Art. 309, a division of
\npower between  the Parliament  or President, as the case may
\nbe, on the one side and the State Legislature or Governor on
\nthe other.  The division  is marked by the circumstance that
\nunder Art  309, services  and posts  in connection  with the
\naffairs of  the Union are dealt with by a separate authority
\nfrom the services and
\n161<\/span>
\nposts in  connection with  the\taffairs\t of  a\tState.\tThat
\ndichotomy it  seems, is\t not possible  in the power employed
\nfor appointing\tpersons in  the Indian\tAudit  and  Accounts
\nDepartment and\tfor prescribing their conditions of service.
\nThe Comptroller\t and Auditor-General  of India,\t who is\t the
\nhead of\t that department,  is a\t constitutional\t functionary
\nholding a  special position  under the\tConstitution.  Under
\nArt.  149,  he\tperforms  duties  and  exercises  powers  in
\nrelation to  the accounts  of the  Union  and  also  of\t the
\nStates. Clause\t(1) of\tArt. 151  requires him\tto submit  a
\nreport\trelating  to  the  accounts  of\t the  Union  to\t the
\nPresident, who\tcauses them  to be laid before each House of
\nParliament. Likewise, clause (2) of Art. 151 requires him to
\nsubmit a  report relating  to the accounts of a State to the
\nGovernor of the State, who causes them to be laid before the
\nLegislature  of\t the  State.  It  cannot  be  said,  in\t the
\ncircumstances, that  the persons serving in the Indian Audit
\nand Accounts  Department are  holding office  in  connection
\nwith the affairs of the Union exclusively. It may be pointed
\nout that  when the Constitutional Adviser prepared the Draft
\nConstitution for  consideration by  the Constituent Assembly
\nthe  document\tcontained  separate   provisions   for\t the
\nappointment of\tthe Auditor-General  of the  Federation\t and
\nAuditors-General for  the Provinces. The Auditor-General for
\nthe Federation\twas to be appointed by the President and his
\nfunctions extended to the accounts of the Federation as well
\nas of  the Provinces.  But  it\twas  open  to  a  Provincial
\nLegislature to\tprovide by  law for  the appointment  of  an
\nAuditor-General for the Province and the appointment to that
\noffice was  to be made by the Governor. The Expert Committee
\non  the\t financial  provisions\tof  the\t Union\tConstitution
\nfavoured the continuance of a single Auditor-General for the
\nGovernment  of\t India\tas   well  as\tfor  the  Provincial
\nGovernments and\t hoped that the Provincial Governments would
\nrefrain\t from  using  their  power  of\tappointing  separate
\nAuditors-General of  their own.\t When the matter came before
\nthe  Drafting\tCommittee,  it\t decided  that\tthe  persons
\nperforming the\tfunctions of  the Auditor-General in a State
\nshould\tbe   designated\t  Auditor-in-Chief   in\t  order\t  to
\ndistinguish him\t from the Auditor-General of India, and that
\nthe salaries  and allowances  of the staff of these officers
\nshould be  fixed by  the Auditor-General  of India  and\t the
\nAuditor-in-Chief in  consultation with the President and the
\nGovernor respectively.\tThereafter, the\t Drafting  Committee
\nreconsidered the  desirability of  permitting a multiplicity
\nof audit  authorities, one  for the  Union and\tone for each
\nState. On 1st August, 1949 Shri T.T. Krishnamachari moved an
\namendment deleting  the draft  articles enabling  the  State
\nLegislatures  to  create  their\t own  Auditors-in-Chief.  He
\npointed out  that since the Constituent Assembly had already
\nadopted articles  whereby the  auditing and accounting would
\nbecome “one  institution, so  to say, under the authority of
\nthe
\n162<\/span>
\nComptroller and\t Auditor-General”, it  was not\tnecessary to
\nhave separate  provision for  the  States.  Accordingly,  he
\nproposed the  addition of  a new  article now  clause (2) of
\nArt.  151]   about  the\t  Comptroller  and  Auditor-General,
\nrequiring him  to submit  the reports  of the  accounts of a
\nState to  the Governor\tfor  being  laid  before  the  State
\nLegislature.  These   amendments   were\t  adopted   by\t the
\nConstituent Assembly.  It  is  evident\tthat  the  authority
\nvested in  the Comptroller  and Auditor\t General ranges over
\nfunctions associated  with the\taffairs of the Union as well
\nas over functions associated with the affairs of the States.
\nIt is  a single\t office, and  the Indian  Audit and Accounts
\nDepartment, which  it heads,  is a  single department.\tThey
\ncannot be said to be concerned with the affairs of the Union
\nexclusively. Consequently, the regulation of the recruitment
\nand conditions\tof service  of persons serving in the Indian
\nAudit and Accounts Department cannot be regarded as a matter
\nfalling with the domain of the President within the terms of
\nthe proviso  to Art.  309. A special provision was necessary
\nto entrust the President with that power, and that provision
\nis clause (5) of Art, 148. The power contained in clause (5)
\nof Art. 148 is not related to the power under the proviso to
\nArt. 309. The two powers are separate and distinct from each
\nother and  are not  complementary to  one  another.  In\t our
\nopinion, the  reference to the proviso under Art. 309 in the
\nrecital of  the Notification publishing the Rules of 1974 is
\nmeaningless and must be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question is  whether clause  (5) of  Art. 148
\npermits\t the   enactment  of   rules  having   retrospective
\noperation.  It\t is  settled   law  that  unless  a  statute
\nconferring the\tpower to  make rules provides for the making
\nof  rules  with\t retrospective\toperation,  the\t rules\tmade
\npursuant to  that power can have prospective operation only.
\nAn exception,  however, is the proviso to Art. 309. In B. S.
\nVadera v.  Union of  India &  Ors.<\/a> this\t Court held that the
\nrules  framed\tunder  the   proviso  to  Art.\t309  of\t the
\nConstitution  could   have  retrospective   operation.\t The
\nconclusion followed  from the  circumstance that  the  power
\nconferred under the porviso to Art. 309 was intended to fill
\na hiatus  that is  to  say,  until  Parliament\tor  a  State
\nLegislature enacted a law on the subject matter of Art. 309.
\nThe  rules  framed  under  the\tproviso\t to  Art.  309\twere
\ntransient in  character and  were  to  do  duty\t only  until
\nlegislation was\t enacted. As  interim substitutes  for\tsuch
\nlegislation it\twas clearly  intended that  the rules should
\nhave the same range of operation as an Act
\n163<\/span>
\nof Parliament  or of  the State\t Legislature. The intent was
\nreinforced by  the declaration\tin the\tproviso to  Art. 309
\nthat “any  rules so  made shall\t have effect  subject to the
\nprovisions of  any such\t Act”. Those  features are absent in
\nclause (5)  of Art. 148. There is nothing in the language of
\nthat clause  to indicate  that the rules framed therein were
\nintended  to   serve  until  Parliamentary  legislation\t was
\nenacted. All  that the\tclause says is that the rules framed
\nwould be  subject to  the provisions of the Constitution and
\nof any\tlaw made by Parliament. We are satisfied that clause
\n(5) of\tArt. 148  confers power\t on the\t President to  frame
\nrules operating\t prospectively only. Clearly then. the rules
\nof 1974\t cannot have  retrospective operation, and therefore
\nsub-rule (2)  of rule  1, which\t declares that\tthey will be
\ndeemed to  have come  into force  on 27th July, 1956 must be
\nheld ultra vires.\n<\/p>\n
     If the  Rules of  1974 do\tnot cover  the case  of\t the
\nrespondents then  admittedly the only question which remains
\nin regard  to them  is whether the amendment intended by the
\nComptroller and\t Auditor General in 1956 to paragraph 143 of
\nthe Manual  of Standing\t Orders\t results  in  amending\tthat
\nparagraph. The amendment is in the form of a correction slip
\nwhich, it  is not  disputed,  possesses\t the  status  of  an
\nadministrative instruction.  The contention on behalf of the
\nrespondents is\tthat paragraph 143 possesses the status of a
\nstatutory rule\tand, therefore,\t the amendment\tattempted by
\nthe correction\tslip has  no legal  effect on  it. The\tHigh
\nCourt held  that paragraph  143 was  a statutory rule and it
\nproceeded to hold so on the basis of affidavits filed before
\nit. But the matter has been more carefully researched since,
\nand the\t relevant material  is now  set out  in the  special
\nleave petition,\t which has  given rise\tto this\t appeal.  It
\nappears\t that\tin  1921   the\t Auditor-General,   as\t the
\nadministrative head of the Indian Audit Department, inserted
\nArt. 1666A  by a  circular No. 1757-E\/1129 dated 18th April,
\n1921 giving  weight to the length of service in the fixation
\nof seniority.  In the Audit Code prepared subsequently, Art,
\n1666A appeared\tas Art.\t 52. Thereafter,  in the  Manual  of
\nStanding Orders\t issued by the Auditor-General in 1938, Art.
\n52 found  expression as\t paragraph 143.\t The provision never
\nacquired statutory  force under the Government of India Act,
\n1919. Learned  counsel for  the respondents  urges  that  it
\nacquired  statutory  force  under  sub-s.  (2)\tof  s.\t252.
\nGovernment of India Act, 1935. Sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 252
\nprovide:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “252. (1)  All persons  who immediately before the
\n     commencement of  Part III\tof this\t Act were members of
\n     the staff\tof  the\t High  Commissioner  for  India,  or
\n     members of\t the staff of the Auditor of the accounts of
\n     the Secretary
\n164<\/span>
\n     of State  in Council,  shall continue  to be,  or shall
\n     become, members  of the  staff of the High Commissioner
\n     for India\tor, as\tthe case  may be,  of the Auditor of
\n     Indian Home Accounts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) All  such persons\t aforesaid shall  hold their
\n     offices or\t posts subject to like conditions of service
\n     as\t to   remuneration,  pensions\tor   otherwise,\t  as
\n     therefore, or not less favourable conditions, and shall
\n     be entitled  to reckon  for  purposes  of\tpension\t any
\n     service which  they would have been, entitled to reckon
\n     if this Act had not been passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     *\t\t   *\t       *\t     *\t\t  *”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-s. (2)\t of s.\t252 does  not help  the respondents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Firstly, the guarantee conferred by it covered those persons
\nwho held offices or posts on the staff of the Auditor of the
\naccounts of  the Secretary  of State  in Council  and on the
\nstaff of  the Indian  Home Accounts  immediately before\t the
\ncommencement of\t Part III  of the  Act. The  respondents are
\nclearly not  such persons.  Secondly, even  if it be assumed
\nthat the  benefit of  sub-s. (2)  can  be  extended  to\t the
\nrespondents, sub-s.  (2) merely\t protects the  conditions of
\nservice enjoyed\t by them  as they  existed before.  The sub-
\nsection does  not enlarge or improve on the quality of those
\nconditions of  service. If  seniority was  determined  by  a
\ndepartmental instruction,  sub-s.  (2)\tdid  not  give\tthat
\nprovision the higher status of a statutory rule. It remained
\nwhat it always was, a departmental instruction. We were also
\nreferred to Art. 313 of the Constitution, but that provision
\nalso  does   not  result   in  converting   a\tdepartmental
\ninstruction into a statutory rule. Plainly, paragraph 143 in
\nthe  Manual   of  Standing   Orders  remained  throughout  a
\ndepartmental instruction and, therefore, could be amended by
\nthe departmental  instruction contained\t in  the  correction
\nslip issued  by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in 1956.
\nOn  that   conclusion  being   reached,\t the  claim  of\t the
\nrespondents must fail. The appeals have to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  connected writ  petition No.  357 of 1979 there
\nare 15\tpetitioners. The  first ten  passed the\t Subordinate
\nAccounts  Service  Examination\tand  were  promoted  to\t the
\nservice after  1956 and before the enactment of the Rules of
\n1974. They will be governed by the legal position enunciated
\nin  the\t  aforesaid  appeals.\tThe  eleventh,\ttwelfth\t and
\nthirteenth petitioners\tpassed the  examination\t immediately
\nbefore the  enactment of the Rules of 1974 but were promoted
\nafter the  Rules were  enacted.\t The  remaining\t petitioners
\nappeared at  the examination  and were\tpromoted  after\t the
\nenactment of  the  Rules.  In  the  case  of  the  last\t two
\ncategories the Rules of
\n165<\/span>
\n1974 will  apply. Having regard to the provision determining
\nthe fixation  of seniority  under the  Rules of 1974 and the
\nposition obtaining  thereafter, none  of the petitioners can
\nclaim the  benefit of  weigtage on  the basis  of length  of
\nservice. But these petitioners rely on the second of the two
\ncontentions concerning\tthe validity  of the  Rules of 1974.
\nThey assail  specifically the  validity of  Rule 7(2)  which
\nprovides for fixation of seniority. The argument is that the
\nfixation of  seniority has  been made by Rule 7(2) to depend
\non the\torder in  which appointments to the service are made
\nunder Rule  6, and  that, it  is pointed  out, depends on an
\narbitrary power\t conferred on  the Comptroller\tand  Auditor
\nGeneral to  pass orders and instructions. We see no force in
\nthe contention.\t The Comptroller  and Auditor  General is  a
\nhigh ranking  constitutional authority,\t and can be expected
\nto act\taccording to  the needs\t of the\t service and without
\narbitrariness. He  is the  constitutional head of one of the
\nmost important\tdepartments of the State, and is expected to
\nknow what  the department  requires and\t how best  to fulfil
\nthose requirements.  We are  unable to\thold that  the power
\nconferred on  him under\t the Rules  violates  the  principle
\nagainst excessive delegation.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition No. 4367 of 1978 must also be treated
\non the\tbasis that  the petitioners are not, in the fixation
\nof their  seniority, entitled to weightage with reference to
\ntheir  length\tof  service.   Both  writ   petitions  must,
\ntherefore, be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeals  Nos. 1584-1588  of 1973 are allowed, the
\njudgment and order of the Madras High Court is set aside and
\nthe writ  petition is  dismissed. Writ\tPetition Nos. 357 of
\n1979 and 4367 of 1978 are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t Appeals allowed and\n\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n166<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 783, 1981 SCR (2) 155 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. PETITIONER: ACCOUNTANT GENERAL & ANR. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: S. DORAISWAMY & ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1980 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAccountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-06T05:18:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-06T05:18:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\"},\"wordCount\":3266,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\",\"name\":\"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-06T05:18:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-06T05:18:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980","datePublished":"1980-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-06T05:18:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980"},"wordCount":3266,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980","name":"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-06T05:18:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/accountant-general-anr-etc-etc-vs-s-doraiswamy-ors-etc-etc-on-13-november-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}