Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Mysore And Ors on 1 March, 1966
Now, it is true that clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated
25th October, 1965 Was not a statutory provision having the
force of law and was merely an administrative instruction
issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive
power. But that does not present any difficulty, for it is
now well settled by several decisions of this Court that %IV
no statutory rules are made regulating recruitment or condi-
tions of service; the State Government always can in
exercise of its executive power issue administrative
instructions, providing for recruitment and laying down
conditions of service. Vide B. N. Nagarajan v. State of
Mysore(1) and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
(2) It was, therefore, competent to the State Government to
issue clause (2)(ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October,
1965 in exercise of its executive power laying down the
principle to be followed in adjusting inter se seniority of
the officers in the integrated service.
Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
But we do not think this argument is well founded. Clause
(2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 provided
that the seniority of the officers in the integrated service
shall be determined by reference to the length of continuous
service from the date of appointment in the group within
their respective service. What was, therefore, required to
be taken into account was the actual length of continuous
service from the date of appointment and not the length of
continuous service reckoned from an artificial date given by
the, State Government. Now, it is true that clause (2) (ii)
of the memorandum dated. 25th October, 1965 was in the
nature of administrative instruction, not having the force
of law, but the State Government could not at its own sweet
will depart from it without rational justification and fix
an artificial date for commencing the length of continuous
service in the, case of some individual officers only for
the purpose of giving them, seniority in contravention of
that clause. That would be clearly violative of articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. The sweep of articles 14 and 16
is wide and pervasive. These two articles embody the
principle of rationality and they are intended to strike
against arbitrary and discriminatory action-taken by the,
'State' Where the State Government departs from a principle
of seniority laid down by it, albeit by administrative
instructions, and the departure is without reason and
arbitrary, it would directly infringe the guarantee of
equality under articles 14 and 16. It is interesting to
notice that in the United States it-is now well settled that
an executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards
by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must
scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation
of an act in violation of them.
1