{"id":178692,"date":"1967-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967"},"modified":"2019-02-16T23:33:17","modified_gmt":"2019-02-16T18:03:17","slug":"state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967","title":{"rendered":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 349, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 407<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MYSORE & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP. NARASING RAO\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/08\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nWANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nMITTER, G.K.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  349\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 407\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1972 SC 252\t (6)\n D\t    1974 SC   1\t (40A,46,52)\n F\t    1974 SC1631\t (28)\n F\t    1976 SC 490\t (27,106)\n R\t    1978 SC 327\t (7,9,10)\n RF\t    1981 SC 298\t (24)\n RF\t    1985 SC1124\t (7)\n RF\t    1989 SC 307\t (9)\n APR\t    1989 SC1256\t (8)\n F\t    1989 SC1308\t (7)\n R\t    1992 SC1754\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution   of   India  Arts.   14,\t 16--Non-matriculate\nGovernment  employee placed in lower pay  scale--Matriculate\nemployees doing similar work placed in higher scale--Whether\ndiscrimination--Whether\t higher general\t education  relevant\nconsideration\tfor  fixing  higher  pay   where   technical\nqualifications are similar.\nStates\tReorganisation Act, 1956, s.  115(7)--Respondent  in\nsingle\tcadre of matriculate and non-matriculate tracers  in\nold  Hyderabad\tState--Placed  in  separate  cadre  of\tnon-\nmatriculates in new Mysore State--Whether his conditions, of\nservice adversely affected.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent was employed as a Tracer in the\t Engineering\nDepartment in the erstwhile Hyderabad State where the  cadre\nof  Tracers consisted of both matriculates as well  as\tnon-\nmatriculates and no distinction was made between them.\tAs a\nresult\tof  the\t reorganisation of States  in  1956  he\t was\nallotted  to the appellant Mysore State where the  cadre  of\nTracers\t was  reorganised  into\t two,  ,one  consisting\t  of\nmatriculate  Tracers in a higher scale of pay and the  other\nof  non-matriculates in a lower scale.\tThe  respondent\t was\ngiven the option either to remain in his old Hyderabad scale\nof  pay\t or  to\t accept the new\t scale\tapplicable  to\tnon-\nmatriculates.  He refused to exercise the option and claimed\nthat the cadre of Tracers should not have been divided\tinto\ntwo  grades  and that no distinction should have  been\tmade\nbetween\t matriculates and non-matriculates.  His  claim\t was\nrejected  by the Superintending Engineer on March  19,\t1958\nand he filed a writ petition in the High Court praying\tthat\nthe order of the Superintending Engineer be quashed and\t for\nthe issue of writ in the nature, of mandamus to fix his\t pay\nin  the scale prescribed for matriculate Tracers.  The\tHigh\nCourt allowed the petition, holding that there was no  valid\nreason for making a distinction as both matriculate and non-\nmatriculate Tracers were doing the same kind of work and the\ndistinction made was in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of\t the\nConstitution.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHeld:\t  Allowing    the   appeal.    Higher\t educational\nqualifications\tare  relevant considerations  for  fixing  a\nhigher\tpay  scale and the classification of two  grades  of\nTracers\t in the new Mysore State was not violative of  Arts.\n14 or 16 of the Constitution.\nArticles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code\nOf  guarantees\tand supplement each other.  In\tother  words\nArt.  16  is  only an instance of  the\tapplication  of\t the\ngeneral rule of equality laid down in Art. 14 and it  should\nbe construed as such.  Hence there is no denial of  equality\nof   opportunity   unless  the\tperson\twho   complains\t  of\ndiscrimination\tis  equally  situated  with  the  person  or\npersons who are alleged to have been favoured. [411E-F]\n408\nThe  provisions\t of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do  not\texclude\t the\nlaying\tdown  of selective tests, nor do they  preclude\t the\nGovernment  from laying down qualifications for the post  in\nquestion.   Such qualifications need not be  only  technical\nand  it\t is open to the Government to consider\tthe  general\neducational  attainments  of  the  candidates  and  to\tgive\npreference   to\t candidates  who  have\tbetter\t educational\nqualifications\tbesides\t the  technical\t proficiency  of   a\nTracer. [411G412B]\nGeneral\t Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari,<\/a>  [1962]  2\nS.C.R. 586, 596, referred to.\nThere  was  no\tforce in the  respondent's  contention\tthat\nbecause\t of  his having been in one grade  with\t matriculate\nTracers in the old State and, on his being made to work in a\nseparate   non-matriculate  grade  in  the  new\t State\t his\nconditions  of service were adversely affected in  violation\nof  s.\t116(7)\tof  the\t States\t Reorganisation\t Act   1956.\nFurthermore  the basis of promotion was merit and  seniority\nbased  on the interstate seniority list prepared  under\t the\nprovisions  of the Act; thus the respondent's seniority\t had\nnot  been  affected and he was not deprived of\tany  accrued\nbenefits. [412F-G; 414C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1238 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJanuary\t 15, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ  Petition
\nNo. 48 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Gopalakrishnan and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
\nS.   C. Mazumdar, M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRamaswami, J.This appeal is brought, by special leave,\tfrom
\nthe judgment of the Mysore High Court dated January 15, 1963
\nin  Writ  Petition No. 48 of 1962 granting a  writ  -in\t the
\nnature of mandamus directing the appellants to accord to the
\nrespondent  that  benefit  of both the\trevised\t higher\t pay
\nscales\tfor  the Matriculate tracers with  effect  from\t the
\nrespective dates on which they came into force.
\nThe respondent, Narasing Rao was employed as a tracer in the
\nEngineering  Department\t in the Ex-Hyderabad  State  on\t the
\nscale  of  pay\tRs. 65-90.In the  cadre\t of  tracersof\tthat
\nState,there    were   matriculates   as\t  well\t  as\tnon-
\nmatriculates.But there was no distinction made in the  scale
\nof  pay for that reason and all the tracers were  placed  in
\nthe  -same  scale.  The respondent  was\t a  non-matriculate.
\nThere was re-organisation of States in 1956 and as a  result
\nof the re-organisation a part of the area of Hyderabad State
\nbecame\tpart  of the new Mysore State.\tThe  respondent\t was
\nallotted to the new Mysore State.  After the transfer of the
\nrespondent to the new State. the cadre of tracers into which
\ntracers\t from Bombay State had also been absorbed,  was\t re-
\norganised  into\t two grades, one consisting  of\t matriculate
\ntracers\t whose scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 50-120 and\t the
\nother of non-matriculates
\n409<\/span>
\nat  Rs.\t 40-80\twith effect from January  1,  1957.   It  is
\nnecessary to state that in the old Mysore State even  before
\nNovember  1,  1956 there were two grades of  tracers,  viz.,
\nnon-S.S.L.C.  tracers  on the pay scale of  Rs.\t 30-50.\t and
\nS.S.L.C.  tracers  on the pay scale of Rs.  40-60.   As\t the
\nrespondent was a non-matriculate he was given the option  to
\naccept the new scale of pay i.e., Rs. 40-80 or remain in the
\nold  Hyderabad\tscale  of Rs.  65-90.\tBut  the  respondent
\nrefused to exercise the option and claimed that the cadre of
\ntracers in the new Mysore State should not have been divided
\ninto  two  grades and that no distinction should  have\tbeen
\nmade between matriculates and non-matriculates.\t The respon-
\ndent insisted that his pay should be fixed in the grade\t Rs.
\n50-120.\t  The  claim  was  rejected  by\t the  Superintending
\nEngineer on March 19, 1958 and the respondent was told\tthat
\nhe could only be fixed in the new revised scale of Rs. 40-80
\nas  he had not passed the S.S.L.C. examination.\t  Meanwhile,
\nby  an order of the Government dated February 27,  1961\t the
\npay  scales of the tracers in the new State of\tMysore\twere
\nfurther revised and the revised pay scales were directed  to
\ncome  into  force with effect from January 1,  1961.   Under
\nthis  Government  order,  the tracers  who  had\t passed\t the
\nS.S.L.C.  examination were entitled to opt in favour of\t the
\npay  scale  Rs.\t 80-150 and those who had  not\tpassed\tthat
\nexamination were entitled to get into pay scale of Rs.\t70-1\n<\/p>\n
10.  The respondent claimed that he was entitled to the\t pay
\nscale applicable to the tracers who had passed the  S.S.L.C.
\nexamination  viz., Rs. 80150.  The claim of  the  respondent
\nwas  rejected.\t Thereafter  the  respondent  filed  a\twrit
\npetition in the Mysore High Court praying that the order  of
\nthe Superintending Engineer dated March 19,  1958 fixing his
\npay  in the scale of non-matriculate tracers and giving\t him
\nthe option; to retain his old scale may be quashed and for a
\nwrit  in the nature of mandamus to fix his pay in the  scale
\nprescribed for matriculate tracers.  The High Court  allowed
\nthe writ petition, holding that there was a violation of the
\nguarantees  given under Arts. 14 and 16 of the\tConstitution
\nand  granted  the relief claimed by the\t respondent  on\t the
\nground\tthat  there  was  no  valid  reason  for  making   a
\ndistinction as both matriculate and non-matriculate  tracers
\nwere doing the same kind of work.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question  to be considered\tin  this  appeal  is
\nwhether\t the  creation of two scales of tracers in  the\t new
\nMysore\tState who were doing the same kind of work  amounted
\nto  a discrimination which violated the provisions of  Arts.
\n14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant law on the subject is well-settled.  Under Art.
\n16   of\t the  Constitution,  there  shall  be  equality\t  of
\nopportunity   for  all\tcitizens  in  matters  relating\t  to
\nemployment  or appointment to any office under the State  or
\nto promotion from one office to a higher office\t thereunder.
\nArticle\t 16 of the Constitution is only an incident  of\t the
\napplication of the concept of equality enshrined in
\n410<\/span>
\nArt.  14  thereof.   It gives effect  to  -the\tdoctrine  of
\nequality  in  the matter of appointment and  promotion.\t  It
\nfollows that there can be a reasonable classification of the
\nemployees for the purpose of appointment or promotion.\t The
\nconcept\t of  equality  in the matter  of  promotion  can  be
\npredicated  only when the promotees are drawn from the\tsame
\nsource.\t   ‘This  Court\t in  dealing  with  the\t extent\t  of
\nprotection  of\tArt.  16(1)  observed  in  General  Manager,
\nSouthern Rly. v. Rangachari<\/a>(1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Thus construed it would be clear that matters
\n\t      relating to employment cannot be confined only
\n\t      to  the  initial matters prior to the  act  of
\n\t      employment.   The\t narrow\t construction  would
\n\t      confine  the application of Art. 16(1) to\t the
\n\t      initial employment and nothing else; but\tthat
\n\t      clearly is only one of the matters relating to
\n\t      employment.   The\t other matters\trelating  to
\n\t      employment  would inevitably be the  provision
\n\t      as  to  the salary and  periodical  increments
\n\t      therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as
\n\t      to   pension   and   as\tto   the   age\t  of
\n\t      superannuation.\t These\t are   all   matters
\n\t      relating to employment and they are, and\tmust
\n\t      be,  deemed to be included in  the  expression
\n\t      ‘matters\trelating  to  employment’  in\tArt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      16(1)………………\tThis   equality\t  of
\n\t      opportunity need not be confused with absolute
\n\t\t\t    equality  as such.\tWhat is guaranteed
\n  is  the
\n\t      equality\tof  opportunity\t and  nothing  more.
\n\t      Article  16(1)  or (2) does not  prohibit\t the
\n\t      prescription of reasonable rules for selection
\n\t      to  any  employment  or  appointment  to\t any
\n\t      office.\t  Any\t provision   as\t   to\t the
\n\t      qualifications  for  the\temployment  or\t the
\n\t      appointment  to  office reasonably  fixed\t and
\n\t      applicable to all citizens would certainly  be
\n\t      consistent  with the doctrine of the  equality
\n\t      of  opportunity; but in regard to\t employment,
\n\t      like  other  terms and  conditions  associated
\n\t      with and incidental to it, the promotion to  a
\n\t      selection post is also included in the matters
\n\t      relating to employment, and even in regard  to
\n\t      such a promotion to a selection post  all,that
\n\t      Art.   16(1)   guarantees\t  is   equality\t  of
\n\t      opportunity  to  all citizens who\t enter\tser-
\n\t      vice…………… In this connection it\t may
\n\t      be  relevant to remember that Art.  16(1)\t and
\n\t      (2) really give effect to the equality  before
\n\t      law   guaranteed\tby  Art.  14  and   to\t the
\n\t      prohibition  of discrimination  guaranteed  by
\n\t      Art. 15(1).  The three provisions form part of
\n\t      the same constitutional code of guarantees and
\n\t      supplement  each other.  If that be so,  there
\n\t      would  be\t no difficulty in holding  that\t the
\n\t      matters  relating to employment  must  include
\n\t      ‘all  matters in relation to  employment\tboth
\n\t      prior, and subsequent, to the employment which
\n\t      are incidental to the employment and form part
\n\t      of terms and conditions of such employment.”
\n(1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586, 596.\n<\/p>\n
411<\/span><\/p>\n
The  argument was stressed on behalf of the respondent\tthat
\nsuccess in the S.S.L.C. examination had no relevance to\t the
\npost  of  tracer and the tracers of the erstwhile  State  of
\nHyderabad who were allotted to the new State of Mysore\twere
\npersons\t similarly situated and there was  no  justification
\nfor  making  a discrimination against only some of  them  by
\ncreating  a higher pay scale for tracers who had passed\t the
\nS.S.L.C.  examination.\tIt was contended for the  respondent
\nthat all, the tracers who were allotted to the new State  of
\nMysore\twere persons who were turning out the same kind\t -of
\nwork and discharging the same kind of duty and there was  no
\nrational  basis for making two classes of tracers, one\tcon-
\nsisting of those who had passed the S.S.L.C. examination and
\nthe other consisting of those who had not.  In our  opinion,
\nthere  is no justification for the argument put\t forward  in
\nfavour\tof the respondent.  It is well-settled\tthat  though
\nArt.  14  forbids  class legislation,  it  does\t not  forbid
\nreasonable  classification for the purposes of\tlegislation.
\nWhen any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on
\nthe ground that it contravenes Art. 14, its validity can  be
\nsustained  if  two tests are satisfied.\t The first  test  is
\nthat the classification on which it is founded must be based
\non  an intelligible differentia which distinguishes  persons
\nor  things  grouped  together from others left\tout  of\t the
\ngroup;\tand  the  second test is  that\tthe  differentia  in
\nquestion  must\thave  a reasonable relation  to\t the  object
\nsought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision  in
\nquestion.  In other words, there must be some rational nexus
\nbetween the basis of classification and the object  intended
\nto  be\tachieved  by the statute or the rule.\tAs  we\thave
\nalready stated ‘ Arts. 14 and 16 form part of the same\tcon-
\nstitutional  code of guarantees and supplement\teach  other.
\nIn  other  words,  Art.\t 16  is\t only  an  instance  of\t the
\napplication  of\t the general rule of equality laid  down  in
\nArt. 14 and it should be construed as such.  Hence, there is
\nno  denial of equality of opportunity unless the person\t who
\ncomplains  of  discrimination is equally situated  with\t the
\nperson\tor  persons who are alleged to have  been  favoured,
\nArticle\t 1.6(1) does not bar a reasonable classification  of
\nemployees  or reasonable tests for their selection.   It  is
\ntrue  that the selective test adopted by the Government\t for
\nmaking\ttwo different classes will be violative of Arts.  14
\nand  16 if there is no relevant connection between the\ttest
\nprescribed  and\t the interest of public service.   In  other
\nwords, there must be a reasonable relation of the prescribed
\ntest to the suitability of the candidate for the post or for
\nemployment  to\tpublic service as such.\t The  provisions  of
\nArt.  14  or  Art.  16 do not exclude  the  laying  down  of
\nselective  tests, nor do they preclude the  Government\tfrom
\nlaying\tdown qualifications for the post in question.\tSuch
\nqualifications need not be only technical but they can\talso
\nbe general qualifications relating to the suitability of the
\ncandidate  for public service as such.\tIt is therefore\t not
\nright to say that in the appointment to the post of  tracers
\nthe Government ought to
\n412<\/span>
\nhave  taken into account only the technical  Proficiency  of
\nthe  candidates in the particular craft.  It is open to\t the
\nGovernment   to\t consider  also\t the   general\t educational
\nattainments  of\t the candidates and to\tgive  preference  to
\ncandidates  who\t have  a  better  educational  qualification
\nbesides technical proficiency of a tracer.  The relevance of
\ngeneral\t education  even  to technical\tbranches  of  public
\nservice was emphasised long ago by Macaulay as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Men  who have been engaged, up to one and\t two
\n\t      and twenty, in studies which have no immediate
\n\t      connexion with the business of any profession,
\n\t      and the effect of which is merely to open,  to
\n\t      invigorate,  and\tto  enrich  the\t mind,\twill
\n\t      generally\t be found, in the business of  every
\n\t      profession,  superior  to men  who  have,,  at
\n\t      eighteen\tor nineteen, devoted  themselves  to
\n\t      the special studies of their calling.  Indeed,
\n\t      early  superiority in literature\tand  science
\n\t      generally\t indicates  the\t existence  of\tsome
\n\t      qualities\t which are securities against  vice-
\n\t      industry,\t self-denial, a taste for  pleasures
\n\t      not  sensual, a laudable desire of  Honourable
\n\t      distinction,  a still more laudable desire  to
\n\t      obtain   the   approbation  of   friends\t and
\n\t      relations.   We,\ttherefore,  think  that\t the
\n\t      intellectual test about to be established will
\n\t      be found in practice to be also the best moral
\n\t      test can be devised.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t(Hansard, Series, 3 CXXVIII, 754, 755)
\nIn our opinion, therefore, higher educational qualifications
\nsuch  as  success in the S.S.L.C. examination  are  relevant
\nconsiderations for fixing a higher pay scale for tracers who
\nhave passed the S.S.L.C. examination and the  classification
\nof  two grades of tracers in the new Mysore State,  one\t for
\nmatriculate  tracers with a higher pay scale and  the  other
\nfor  non-matriculate tracers with a lower pay scale  is\t not
\nviolative of Arts. 14 or .16 of the Constitution.
\nWe proceed to consider the next question raised on behalf of
\nthe  respondent, viz., that the condition of service of\t the
\nrespondent  has been adversely affected by the\tcreation  of
\ntwo  new  pay scales and that there was a violation  of\t the
\nprovisions of s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act,\t1956
\n(Act No. 37 of 1956) which states:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “115.  Provisions relating to other  services-
\n\t      (I)  Every person who immediately\t before\t the
\n\t      appointed\t day is serving in  connection\twith
\n\t      the   affairs   of   the\t Union\t under\t the
\n\t      administrative  control  of  the\t Lieutenant-
\n\t      Governor\tor Chief Commissioner in any of\t the
\n\t      existing State of Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg,  Kutch
\n\t      and   Vindhya  Pradesh,  or  is\tserving\t  in
\n\t      connection  with\tthe affairs of\tany  of\t the
\n\t      existing States of Mysore, Punjab, Patiala and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      -East  Punjab  States  Union  and\t  Saurashtra
\n\t      shall, as from
\n413<\/span>
\n\t      that  day, be deemed to have been allotted  to
\n\t      serve  in connection with the affairs  of\t the
\n\t      successor State to that existing State.
\n\t      (2)  Every person who immediately\t before\t the
\n\t      appointed\t day is serving in  connection\twith
\n\t      the affairs of an existing State part of whose
\n\t      territories is transferred to another State by
\n\t      the provisions of Part 11 shall, as from\tthat
\n\t      day,   provisionally  continue  to  serve\t  in
\n\t      connection  with the affairs of the  principal
\n\t      successor State to that existing State  unless
\n\t      he is required by general or special order  of
\n\t      the Central Government to serve  provisionally
\n\t      in  connection with the affairs of  any  other
\n\t      successor State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) As soon as may be after the appointed day,
\n\t      the  Central Government shall, by\t general  or
\n\t      special  order, determine the successor  State
\n\t      to   which   every  person  referred   to\t  in
\n\t      subsection  (2) shall be finally allotted\t for
\n\t      service  and the date with effect\t from  which
\n\t      such allotment shall take effect or be  deemed
\n\t      to have taken effect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4) Every person who is finally allotted under
\n\t      the   provisions\tof  sub-section\t (3)  to   a
\n\t      successor\t State shall, if he is\tnot  already
\n\t      serving therein be made available for  serving
\n\t      in that successor State from such date as\t may
\n\t      be   agreed  upon\t between   the\t Governments
\n\t\t\t    concerned, and in default of such agre
\nement, as
\n\t      may be determined by the Central Government.
\n\t      (7) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
\n\t      affect  after the appointed day the  operation
\n\t      of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV  of
\n\t      the   Constitution   in\trelation   to\t the
\n\t      determination of the conditions of service  of
\n\t      persons serving in connection with the affairs
\n\t      of the Union or any State:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\t that  the  conditions\tof   service
\n\t      applicable  immediately before  the  appointed
\n\t      day  to the case of any person referred to  in
\n\t      sub-section  (1) or sub-section (2) shall\t not
\n\t      be varied to his disadvantage except with\t the
\n\t      previous approval of the Central Government.”
\nIt  was\t stated that in the erstwhile  Hyderabad  State\t the
\nrespondent  was\t kept in one grade  along  with\t matriculate
\ntracers and there has been a violation of the proviso to  s.
\n115(7)\tof the States Reorganisation Act, 1956,\t because  in
\nthe new Mysore State the respondent has been made to work in
\na  separate  grade of non-matriculate tracers.\t We  do\t not
\nthink there is any substance in this contention.  We do\t not
\npropose,  in this case, to consider what is the\t full  scope
\nand meaning of the phrase “Conditions of
\nSCI-13
\n414<\/span>
\nservice”  occurring in the proviso to S. 115 of\t the  States
\nReorganisation Act.  It is sufficient for us to say that, in
\nthe present cast,, there is no violation of the proviso\t and
\nthe respondent is not right in contending that his condition
\nof service is adversely affected because he is made to\twork
\nin  the grade of non-matriculate tracers in the\t new  Mysore
\nState.\t It was alleged by the respondent that according  to
\nHyderabad rules 20 per cent of the vacancies of SubOverseers
\nwere to be from the grade of tracers and for those who\twere
\nnot  promoted there was another grade of Rs. 90-120  and  if
\nthe  order  of the Superintending Engineer dated  March\t 19,
\n1958  was  to stand, the respondent’s  chance  of  promotion
\nwould\tbe   affected.\t In  their   counter-affidavit\t the
\nappellants  have said that 10 percent of the tracers in\t the
\nnew State of Mysore are entitled to be promoted to the grade
\nof  Assistant  Draftsmen in the scale of Rs.  110-220.\t The
\nbasis  of promotion to the higher grade was the\t inter-State
\nseniority  list prepared under the provisions of the  States
\nReorganisation Act.  It was stated that the seniority of the
\nrespondent was not affected and he had not been deprived  of
\nany accrued benefits.  The basis of promotion to the  higher
\ngrades was selection based on merit-cum-seniority.  In other
\nwords,\tboth  matriculate and non-matriculate  tracers\twere
\neligible  for  promotion  on the basis\tof  the\t inter-State
\nseniority  list\t prepared  for\tthis  Department.   In\t our
\nopinion,  Counsel on behalf of the respondent is  unable  to
\nmake good his submission on this aspect of the case.
\nFor  the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of\t the
\nMysore\tHigh Court dated January 15, 1963 in  Writ  Petition
\nNo.  48 of 1962 should be set aside and this appeal must  be
\nallowed.   But,\t as  directed by this  Court  in  its  order
\ngranting special leave dated November 6, 1963, the appellant
\nState of Mysore will pay the costs of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n415<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 349, 1968 SCR (1) 407 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: P. NARASING RAO DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-178692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 - 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\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-16T18:03:17+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-16T18:03:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2966,\"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\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\",\"name\":\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-16T18:03:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 - 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\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-16T18:03:17+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967","datePublished":"1967-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-16T18:03:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967"},"wordCount":2966,"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\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967","name":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-16T18:03:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-p-narasing-rao-on-31-august-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967"}]},{"@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\/178692","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=178692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}