{"id":175296,"date":"1976-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976"},"modified":"2019-01-06T06:32:58","modified_gmt":"2019-01-06T01:02:58","slug":"c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976","title":{"rendered":"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2377, \t\t 1977 SCR (1) 791<\/div>\n
Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nC.MUNIYAPPA NAIDU ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/10\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 2377\t\t  1977 SCR  (1) 791\n 1976 SCC  (4) 543\n\n\nACT:\n\t    City   of  Bangalore  Municipal   Corporation   Services\n\t(General)   Cadre  and Recruitment Regulations,\t 1971,\tReg.\n\t3--Absorption  of  Senior Health inspectors  by\t Corporation\n\tcontrary to provision in Reg. 3--Effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\tThe   City  of\tBangalore  Municipal  Corporation   Services\n\t(General)  Cadre and Recruitment Regulations,  1971,  framed\n\tunder  the  City  of  Bangalore Municipal  Corporation\tAct,\n\t1949, came into force on 3rd March,1971. In accordance\twith\n\tthe'  practice\tof the Corporation prevailing\tbefore\tthat\n\tdate to have one half of the cadre of Senior Health  Inspec-\n\ttors  manned  by deputation of Senior Health Inspectors from\n\tthe Karnataka State Civil Service, the appellants were taken\n\ton  deputation by the Corporation from the  Karnataka  State\n\tCivil Service.\tIn 1974, the Corporation passed a resolution\n\tthat the appellants would be absorbed by the Corporation  if\n\tthey were willing to accept their ranking as juniors to\t the\n\tSenior\tHealth Inspectors of the Corporation, and the  State\n\tGovernment  accorded its sanction to the resolution  of\t the\n\tCorporation as required by the Act.  But coming to know that\n\tthe  chances of promotion of the permanent officials of\t the\n\tCorporation would be prejudicially affected by such  absorp-\n\ttion,  the State Government withdrew its  sanction  accorded\n\tearlier.   The\tappellants  preferred  writ  petitions\t for\n\tquashing  the withdrawn\t but the High  Court dismissed\t the\n\tpetitions.\n\t    In\tappeal\tto  this Court, it was\tcontended  that\t the\n\tappellants became permanent employees of the Corporation and\n\tceased\tto be Government servants as soon as the State\tGov-\n\ternment accorded sanction to the Resolution of the  Corpora-\n\ttion  and  that therefore, the State Government\t could\tnot,\n\tthereafter,  by its unilateral action, reverse\tthe  process\n\tand  annihilate\t the relationship of employer  and  employee\n\tbetween\t the  Corporation and the.  appellants\tand  restore\n\ttheir status as Government servants.\n\tDismissing the appeals,\n\t    HELD   :  (1) The Resolution read  with  the  Government\n\tsanction did  not operate to put an end to the status of the\n\tappellants  as\tgovernment servant and to create  the  rela-\n\ttionship  of master and servant between the Corporation\t and\n\tthe appellants, and therefore, it was competent to the State\n\tGovernment  to withdraw the sanction accorded  earlier;\t and\n\tthis  would  be so irrespective of  whether  the  appellants\n\texpressed their willingness to be absorbed as SeniOr  Health\n\tInspectors by the Corporation or not. [797 BC]\n\t    (a) Regulation 3 of the Regulations which were in  force\n\twhen the Resolution was passed by the Corporation recognised\n\tonly  two modes of recruitment to the post of Senior  Health\n\tInspectors  namely,  by promotion from the cadre  of  Junior\n\tHealth\tInspectors and by deputation.  Therefore, to  absorb\n\tSenior\tHealth\tInspectors  from the  State  Directorate  of\n\tHealth\tServices as  permanent employees of the\t Corporation\n\twould  be  plainly contrary to the express mandate  of\tthis\n\tstatutory provision. [796 C & F]\n\t    (b) It could not be urged that because they were already\n\ton deputation in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors under\n\tthe Corporation, their absorption as permanent Senior Health\n\tInspectors did not constitute fresh entry into the cadre  so\n\tas to require compliance with the Regulations.\tNot only\n\t792\n\ttheir  entry  but  also their continuance in  the  cadre  of\n\tSenior\tHealth Inspectors on the  Corporation  establishment\n\tdepended  on their being on deputation, because, it is\tonly\n\tby way of deputation that Senior Health Inspectors from\t the\n\tState Directorate of Health Services can  find place in\t the\n\tcadre  of Senior Health Inspectors on the  establishment  of\n\tthe  Corporation  Since absorption is  appointment,  without\n\tamendment  of  the Regulations\t permitting  appointment  of\n\tSenior Health Inspectors drawn from  the  State\t Directorate\n\tof  Health  Services as permanent Senior  Health  Inspectors\n\tunder the Corporation, the appellants could not be  absorbed\n\ton the Corporation Establishment. [796 G-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 761 of 1976.
\n\t    (Appeal  by\t Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  28-5-1976 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ  Appeal
\n\tNo. 665\/75 ).\n<\/p>\n
\tCIVIL APPEAL No’s. 845-854 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
\t    (Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  28-6-1976 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ  Appeal
\n\tNos. 247, 237, 241,243-246, 248 and 250\/76 respectively.)
\n\t     S.V.  Gupte, S.B. Wad, A.K. Ganguli and Mrs.  Jayashree
\n\twad, for the Appellants in all the Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t    M.P. Chandrakantraj Urs and B.R.G.K. Achar, for Respond-
\n\tents 1 to 3 in CA 761\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tNarayan Nettar, for Respondent 4 in CA. No. 761\/76.
\n\t    A.K.  Sen, M.P. Chandrakantraj Urs and  Narayan  Nettar,
\n\tfor the respondents in CA. No. 845\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\t     M.P.  Chandrakantaraj Urs and Narayan Nettar,  for\t Re-
\n\tspondents 1-3 in CAs 846-849\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tB.R.G.K. Achar for Respondent 1 in CAs. 850-854\/76.
\n\t    M.P.  Chandrakantaraj  Urs and Narayan Nettar,  for\t Re-
\n\tspondents 1-3 in CAs. 850-854\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tNarayan Nettar for Respondent 7 in CAs. 845-846\/76.
\n\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    BHAGWATI,  J.–This\t group of appeals  raises  a  common
\n\tquestion  of  law  affecting  Senior  Health  Inspectors  on
\n\tdeputation   with  the Municipal Corporation of the City  of
\n\tBangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation).\t The
\n\tfacts  giving rise to the appeals are identical and  may  be
\n\tbriefly stated as follows.\n<\/p>\n
\t The  appellants  are  Senior  Health  Inspectors   in\t the
\n\tKarnataka  State Civil Service.\t It seems that prior to\t 3rd
\n\tMarch, 1971, when the City of Bangalore\t Municipal  Corpora-
\n\ttion  Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment\tRegulations,
\n\t1971  (hereinafter referred to as the Cadre and\t Recruitment
\n\tRegulations) came into force, the practice
\n\t793<\/span>
\n\tof  the\t Corporation was to have one half of  the  cadre  of
\n\tSenior\tHealth\tinspectors manned by  deputation  of  Senior
\n\tHealth Inspectors from the Karnataka State Civil Service and
\n\tin accordance with this practice, the appellants were  taken
\n\ton  deputation by the Corporation from the  Karnataka  State
\n\tCivil Service.\tWhile the appellants were working as  Senior
\n\tHealth\tInspectors on deputation, the  Corporation passed  a
\n\tresolution  dated 30th December, 1974- approving the  report
\n\tof  the Commissioner that sixteen Senior Health\t Inspectors,
\n\tincluding the appellants, who were working under the  Corpo-
\n\tration on  deputation should “be absorbed in the interest of
\n\twork if they are :willing on then’ own pay and accept  their
\n\tseniority as Juniors to the Senior Health Inspectors of\t the
\n\tCorporation.”  It is the case of the appellants that on\t the
\n\tsame day, immediately :after the passing of this Resolution,
\n\tthey addressed a communication to the Mayor of the  Corpora-
\n\ttion  intimating     to\t him that they were  willing  to  be
\n\tabsorbed  as Senior Health Inspectors under the\t Corporation
\n\ton their own pay and with ranking below\t  the Senior  Health
\n\tInspectors of the Corporation.\tThe factum of this  communi-
\n\tcation\twas  disputed by the Corporation as well as  by\t the
\n\tState Government, but in the view we are taking, it will not
\n\tbe necessary for us to examine this question.  To.  continue
\n\tfurther\t with the narration of facts, the  Corporation\tsent
\n\tthe  Resolution dated 30th December, 1974 to the State\tGov-
\n\ternment for according its  sanction and the State Government
\n\tby  an order dated 6th May, 1975 accorded sanction  “to\t the
\n\tCorporation’s resolution dated 30th December, 1974 regarding
\n\tthe  absorption of the Senior Health  Inspectors”  mentioned
\n\tthe  Resolution\t under section 89 of the City  of  Bangalore
\n\tMunicipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred  to as
\n\tthe Act).  The term of the Corporation in the meantime\tcame
\n\tto  an end and since fresh elections were not held to  elect
\n\tthe  members  of the Corporation, an administrator  was\t ap-
\n\tpointed’  by  the Government to manage the  affairs  of\t the
\n\tCorporation.   The  administrator   requested\tthe    State
\n\tGovernment to defer implementation of the proposal contained
\n\tin the Resolution dated 30th December, 1974 since the perma-
\n\tnent  officials\t of the Corporation were  considerably\tdis-
\n\tturbed\tby this proposal as it prejudicially affected  their
\n\tchances of promotion by reason of the absorption of  sixteen
\n\tdeputationist  Senior Health Inspectors from  the  Karnataka
\n\tState  Civil Service.  The State Government on the basis  of
\n\tthe  communication  addressed by the Administrator  in\tthis
\n\tbehalf\tpassed another order dated 25th August,\t 1976  with-
\n\tdrawing the sanction accorded under the earlier order  dated
\n\t6th  May, 1975. The appellants being prejudicially  affected
\n\tby the withdrawal of the sanction. preferred writ  petitions
\n\tin the High Court of Karnataka contending that\t  as soon as
\n\tthe  State Government gave its sanction on 6th May, 1975  to
\n\tthe Resolution of the Corporation dated 30th December, 1974,
\n\tthey were absorbed as permanent employees of the Corporation
\n\tand  they  ceased to be Government servants  and  the  State
\n\tGovernment  thereafter\thad  no authority  to  withdraw\t the
\n\tsanction  granted  by it under the earlier order  dated\t 6th
\n\tMay,  1975 and the subsequent order dated 25th\tAugust\t1975
\n\twas  invalid and inoperative. These writ petitions  came  up
\n\tfor  hearing  before a Single Judge of the  High  Court\t who
\n\trejected them by a judgment dated 22nd September, 1975.\t The
\n\tappellants  thereupon preferred appeals under section  4  of
\n\tthe Karnataka High Court Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t794<\/span><\/p>\n
\t1961,  but  the\t appeals ‘were unsuccessful  and  they\twere
\n\trejected by a Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment
\n\tdated\t28th  May, 1976.  Hence the present appeals  by\t the
\n\tappellants with special leave obtained from this Court.
\n\t    The\t principal question which arises  for  determination
\n\tin   these appeals is whether the appellants who are  Senior
\n\tHealth\tInspectors mentioned in the Resolution of the Corpo-
\n\tration dated 30th December, 1974 became permanent  employees
\n\tof  the Corporation and ceased to be Government servants  as
\n\tsoon as the State Government passed the order dated 6th May,
\n\t1975 according its sanction to the Resolution of the  Corpo-
\n\tration.\t There can be no doubt that if the  effect  of\t the
\n\tGovernment order dated 6th May, 1975 was to snap the  status
\n\tof the appellants as Government servants and to absorb\tthem
\n\tas permanent employees of the Corporation, the State Govern-
\n\tment  could not thereafter by its unilateral action  reverse
\n\tthe process and annihilate the relationship of employer\t and
\n\temployee  between  the Corporation and\tthe  appellants\t and
\n\trestore their status as Government servants.  The main issue
\n\twhich,\ttherefore,  falls for determination is\tas  to\twhat
\n\tlegal effect flowed from the Government order dated 6th May,
\n\t1975: did it have the effect of absorbing the appellants  as
\n\tpermanent  employees  of the Corporation  with\tsimultaneous
\n\ttermination of their employment as Government servants ?  To
\n\tanswer this issue it is necessary to refer to a few relevant
\n\tprovisions of the Act and the Cadre and Recruitment  Regula-
\n\ttions.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t provisions  in regard to the establishment  of\t the
\n\tCorporation are-to be found in sections 84 to 95 of the Act.
\n\tSection 84 provides for appointment of a Health Officer,  an
\n\tEngineer,  a Revenue Officer and other heads of\t departments
\n\tworking\t under the Commissioner while section 85 deals\twith
\n\tspecial\t superior appointments.\t We are not  concerned\twith
\n\teither of these two sections since Senior Health  Inspectors
\n\tdo not fall within the categories of officers dealt with  in
\n\tthese two sections.  Section 86 provides that if a.  vacancy
\n\toccurs\tin  any office specified in sections 84 and 85 or in
\n\tany  office  under  the\t  Corporation  the  maximum  monthly
\n\tsalary\tof which exceeds two hundred and fifty\trupees,\t the
\n\tCorporation  shall, subject to the confirmation of the\tGov-
\n\ternment, within two months of the date of occurrence of\t the
\n\tvacancy,  appoint a duly qualified person to hold  such\t of-
\n\tfice.\tThe office of Senior Health Inspector is undoubtedly
\n\tan  office the maximum monthly salary of which\texceeds\t two
\n\thundred\t and fifty rupees and therefore, a vacancy  in\tthat
\n\toffice is liable to be filled by the Corporation, subject to
\n\tconfirmation by the Government, under this section. Sections
\n\t87  and 88 are not material for our purpose and we need\t not
\n\tpause  to consider them.  Section 89 says that,\t subject  to
\n\tthe  provisions of sections 84, 85, 86 and 88,\tappointments
\n\tto the Corporation establishment shall be made by the Corpo-
\n\tration\tif the maximum monthly salary of the office  exceeds
\n\ttwo  hundred  and fifty rupees.\t It is clear on\t a  conjoint
\n\treading\t of  sections 86 and 89 that it is  the\t Corporation
\n\twhich  is  entitled  to make appointment to  the  office  of
\n\tSenior\tHealth Inspector and such appointment is subject  to
\n\tconfirmation  by   the Government.   Then comes\t section  90
\n\twhich provides that the Commissioner shall from time to time
\n\tlay before the Standing Committee
\n\t795<\/span>
\n\ta  Schedule  setting forth the designations  and  grades  of
\n\tofficers   and servants who should in his opinion constitute
\n\tthe Corporation establishment and embodying his proposals in
\n\tregard to salaries, fees  and allowances payable to them and
\n\tthe  Standing Committee may   either approve or\t amend\tsuch
\n\tSchedule as it thinks fit and shall lay it before the Corpo-
\n\tration and the Corporation shall then sanction such Schedule
\n\twith or without modifications and may also from time to time
\n\tamend it at the instance of the Commissioner and the  Stand-
\n\ting Committee. There is a proviso to this section which says
\n\tthat no new office shall be created without the sanction  of
\n\tthe Government, if the\t maximum monthly salary exceeds\t two
\n\thundred\t and  fifty rupees.  This proviso, however,  has  no
\n\tapplication  in the present case, since the  Schedule  sanc-
\n\ttioned\tby  the\t Corporation set out the  office  of  Senior
\n\tHealth\tInspector  and the absorption of the  appellants  as
\n\tSenior\tHealth Inspectors on the  Corporation  establishment
\n\tdid not involve the creation of any new office which was not
\n\talready enumerated in the Schedule. Section 91 provides that
\n\tno officer or servant shah be entertained on the Corporation
\n\testablishment unless he has been appointed under section 84,
\n\t85,  86 or 88 or unless his emoluments are included  in\t the
\n\tSchedule sanctioned under section 90.  But this section also
\n\tdoes  not stand in the way of the absorption of\t the  appel-
\n\tlants as Senior Health Inspectors on the Corporation  estab-
\n\tlishment,  since  they are purported to be absorbed  by\t the
\n\tCorporation by\tits  resolution dated\t30th December,\t1974
\n\tand  the Government Order dated 6th May, 1975 is  tantamount
\n\tto  confirmation of such absorption and hence section 86  is
\n\tcomplied with and the office and emoluments of Senior Health
\n\tInspector are also included in the Schedule sanctioned under
\n\tsection\t 90. The other sections dealing with the  establish-
\n\tment of the Corporation\t  are not material except section 94
\n\twhich  confers\tpower on the  Standing\tCommittee  to  frame
\n\tregulations  in respect of the Corporation establishment  in
\n\tregard\tto various matters.   It will, therefore,  be\tseen
\n\tthat  there is nothing in the Act which debarred  absorption
\n\tof the appellants as permanent employees of the\t Corporation
\n\tunder  the Corporation Resolution dated 30th December,\t1974
\n\tread with the Government Order dated 6th May, 1975.\n<\/p>\n
\t     But the argument of the State Government and the Corpo-
\n\tration was, and this argument found favour with the Division
\n\tBench  of the High Court, that until the Cadre and  Recruit-
\n\tment  Regulations were amended, it was not competent to\t the
\n\tCorporation  to\t absorb\t the appellants as permanent  Senior
\n\tHealth\tInspectors on the establishment of  the\t Corporation
\n\tand the Resolution of the Corporation dated  30th  December,
\n\t1974, though sanctioned by the Government by its order dated
\n\t6th  May, 1975, was not effective to bring about  absorption
\n\tof the appellants as permanent employees of the\t Corporation
\n\twith simultaneous termination of their service as Government
\n\tservants.   This argument requires consideration of some  of
\n\tthe relevant provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Regula-
\n\ttions.\t The Cadre and Recruitment Regulations\twere  framed
\n\tunder sections 7, 84, 85, 88 and 94 of the Act and they were
\n\tsanctioned  by the State Government under section  94(g)  of
\n\tthe Act and they came into force with effect from 3rd March,
\n\t1971  being  the date on which they were  published  in\t the
\n\tGovernment
\n\t19–1234SCI\/76
\n\t796<\/span>
\n\tGazette.  Regulation 3 laid down the method of\t recruitment
\n\tand minimum qualifications for recruitment to various  posts
\n\tenumerated in the Schedule.  One of the posts enumerated  in
\n\tthe Schedule was the post of Senior Health Inspector and  it
\n\twas provided in Column 2  of the Schedule that the method of
\n\trecruitment to the post of Senior Health Inspector shall be:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “50%  by\tpromotion from the Cadre  of  Junior  Health
\n\tInspectors of the Corporation,
\n\t      50% by deputation from the State Directorate of Health
\n\tServices.”\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Cadre and Recruitment Regulations  thus  recognised
\n\tonly  two modes of recruitment to the post of Senior  Health
\n\tInspector, namely, promotion from the cadre of Junior Health
\n\tInspectors  and\t deputation from the State  Directorate\t  of
\n\tHealth Services and one half  of  the cadre was to be  drawn
\n\tfrom each of these two sources. No other mode of recruitment
\n\tcould  be resorted to by the Corporation  under\t  the  Cadre
\n\tand Recruitment Regulations.   it is difficult to see how in
\n\tthe  face of this provision which has  admittedly  statutory
\n\teffect, the posts of Senior Health inspector could be filled
\n\tin  by absorption of deputationist Senior Health  Inspectors
\n\tfrom  the Karnataka State Civil Service. Senior\t Health\t In-
\n\tspectors from the State Directorate of Health Services could
\n\tonly  be  on  deputation to the extent of one  half  of\t the
\n\tnumber of posts of Senior Health Inspectors on the  Corpora-
\n\ttion establishment and they could not be absorbed as  perma-
\n\tnent Senior Health Inspectors under the Corporation  without
\n\tviolating the aforesaid statutory  provision.\tThis  statu-
\n\ttory  provision\t does  not contemplate\tany   Senior  Health
\n\tInspectors on the establishment of the\tCorporation who\t are
\n\tdrawn  from the State Directorate of Health Services  other-
\n\twise than on deputation and to absorb Senior Health  Inspec-
\n\ttors from the State Directorate of Health Services as perma-
\n\tnent employees of the Corporation (otherwise than on deputa-
\n\ttion),\twould be plainly contrary  to its  express  mandate.
\n\tIt was, however, contended on behalf of the appellants\tthat
\n\twhen  they were absorbed as permanent Senior Health  Inspec-
\n\ttors  on  the establishment of the  Corporation,  they\twere
\n\talready\t in the cadre of Senior Health Inspectors under\t the
\n\tCorporation,  filling 50% of the posts and their  absorption
\n\tas  permanent  Senior Health Inspectors did  not  constitute
\n\tfresh entry into the cadre so as to require compliance\twith
\n\tthe Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. The position, accord-
\n\ting  to the appellants, was similar to that of\tan  employee
\n\tWho  is\t initially OffiCiating in a pOSt in a cadre  and  is
\n\tsubsequently confirmed in the post.  This contention, we  do
\n\tnot think, is well founded.  It is only by way of deputation
\n\tthat Senior Health Inspectors from the State Directorate  of
\n\tHealth\tServices  can  find place in the  Cadre\t of   Senior
\n\tHealth\tInspectors on the establishment of the\tCorporation.
\n\tNot only their entry but also their continuance in the cadre
\n\tof Senior Health Inspectors on the Corporation establishment
\n\tdepends\t on their being on deputation.\t There is  no  scope
\n\tunder  the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations for  their\t ab-
\n\tsorption  as  permanent Senior Health Inspectors  under\t the
\n\tCorporation.   In fact, it is impermissible to do  so.\t The
\n\tcategory  of Senior Health Inspectors, who are\tregular\t em-
\n\tployees\t of the Corporation, can be drawn only by  promotion
\n\tfrom Junior Health
\n\t797<\/span>
\n\tInspectors and that too, to the extent of only one half\t the
\n\tnumber\tof  posts.  It is, therefore, obvious  that  without
\n\tamendment  of the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations  permit-
\n\tting  appointment–and absorption    is really\tnothing\t but
\n\tappointment–of\t Senior\t Health Inspectors  drawn  from\t the
\n\tState  Directorate of Health Services as  permanent   Senior
\n\tHealth\tInspectors  under the  Corporation,  the  appellants
\n\tcould not be absorbed as permanent Senior Health  Inspectors
\n\ton  the\t Corporation  establishment.   The  conclusion\tmust
\n\tirresistibly  follow that the Resolution of the\t Corporation
\n\tdated  30th  December, 1974 read with the  Government  order
\n\tdated  6th  May, 1975 did not operate to put an end  to\t the
\n\tstatus\tof the appellants as Government\t servants   and\t  to
\n\tcreate\tthe relationship of master and servant\tbetween\t the
\n\tCorporation and the appellants and in the circumstances,  it
\n\twas  competent\tto the State Government to  pass  the  Order
\n\tdated 25th August, 1975 withdrawing the sanction granted  by
\n\tit  under the earlier Order dated 6th May, 1975.  This\tview
\n\ttaken  by us renders it unnecessary to consider whether\t the
\n\tcommunication dated 30th December, 1974 was addressed by the
\n\tappellants to the Mayor of the Corporation expressing  their
\n\twillingness to be absorbed as Senior Health Inspectors under
\n\tthe Corporation on the terms set out in the Resolution dated
\n\t30th  December,\t 1974.\tEven if any such  communication\t was
\n\tsent,  it  could have no legal effect  because,\t as  already
\n\tpointed\t out by us. the appellants could not be absorbed  as
\n\tpermanent Senior Health\t Inspectors  under  the Corporation,
\n\tunless and until the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations\twere
\n\tfirst amended so as to permit such absorption.
\n\t    The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the pecul-
\n\tiar facts and circumstances of the ease, we make no order as
\n\tto costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tV.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\n\tdismissed..\n\t798<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2377, 1977 SCR (1) 791 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: C.MUNIYAPPA NAIDU ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/10\/1976 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. FAZALALI, […]<\/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-175296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 - 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\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-06T01:02:58+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-06T01:02:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2752,\"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\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\",\"name\":\"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-06T01:02:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 - 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\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-06T01:02:58+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976","datePublished":"1976-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-06T01:02:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976"},"wordCount":2752,"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\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976","name":"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-06T01:02:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muniyappa-naidu-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-13-october-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Muniyappa Naidu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 13 October, 1976"}]},{"@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\/175296","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=175296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}