State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhalchandra Khanderao Joshi and Another
working of the invalid list, and amounted to violation of article 16 of the Constitution. This is why the State of Maharashtra, Smt. K.A. Parekh and Smt. R.S. Dossal have come up in appeal by special leave to this Court.The controversy therefore is whether the State government passed. the aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in History and Political Science, as stated in the Directors aforesaid letter dated August 20, 1963, or whether there was no such resolution and the Directors order was unauthorised ? The High Court has taken the view that as no attempt was made to produce the resolution dated February 27, 1963 in Nanekars case, there was no such, resolution at all. On that basis, it held that the Director had no authority to take the decision to amalgamate the lists. 7. We find however that in taking that view the High Court lost sight of the intrinsic evidence which was available on the record, to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed the aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalgamate the two lists. We have extracted the Government resolution dated January 15, 1970 and the underlined portions thereof clearly show that the Government itself reiterated the fact that a decision was taken by Government in the year 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in History and Lecturers in Political Science into one common list of Lecturers in History and Political Science. It has further been state d in that resolution of the Government that accordingly, a combined seniority list was prepared with reference to the date of appointment of the officer concerned in the M.E.S. Class 11, irrespective of the fact as to whether the Lecturers are qualified in both the subjects of History and Political Science or in any one of the two. The reason for taking that decision to amalgamate the two lists has also been stated in the resolution. Then it has been stated that in :view of the difficulties experienced with regard to the implementation of the decision of Government referred to above, the Government on reconsideration had decided to revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists of Lecturers of History and Political Science. It has also been stated that the decision had been taken for reverting to the decision to split up the combined seniority list which formed the basis of promotion of some of the teachers. It would thus appear that the resolution dated January 15, 1970, repeatedly refers to the earlier decision of the State Government of 1963 for amalgamating the lists, states the reason for the amalgamation, makes a mention of the difficulties experienced in the implementation of that decision, and gives the reasons for the governments decision to, revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists. As it was not challenged in the High Court that the resolution dated January 15, 1970 was genuine, the High Court should have taken notice of its intrinsic evidentiary value for the purpose of proving the earlier resolution dated February 27, 1963. If it had done so, it would have inevitably reached the conclusion that the Government had really decided in 1963 to amalgamate the lists, and that the Director had rightly conveyed that decision in his order dated August 20, 1963, and it was therefore an authorised communication. In fact the Director specific ally stated in that order that the decision of Government to amalgamate the two lists had to be. brought to the notice of all concerned. The combined seniority list was therefore fully authorised, and there was nothing wrong if it formed the basis of the promotions which were given to the persons mentioned above. We have no doubt that the High Court did not read the relevant document carefully and that was why it arrived at a contrary conclusion.The resolution dated January 15, 1970 shows that as the Government had decided to split up the seniority list for the department of History and Political Science, it thought it desirable to give an .option to those Lecturers/Pro- fessors of the old Bombay State, who were recruited as Lecturers/Professors of History, but were recognised by the University as teachers of Political Science, to elect for either of the two departments. No exception can be taken to that decision to give the option to the Lecturers/Professors concerned for, in the absence of such an option, they would have been deprived of the opportunity of expressing their desire to serve in the one or the other department on the basis of their experience and prospects of promotion. It was to be appreciated that the decision to amalgamate the seniority lists of the two departments was not taken in consultation with them, and if they were required to teach History, or Political Science, and were promoted as Professors of History or Political Science, on the basis of a combined seniority list for which. they themselves were not responsible, it would have been unfair if they had been required to serve in another department by a unilateral executive fiat. 8. It may be mentioned that Mr. Phadke tried to argue that even if the resolution dated January 15, 1970 were held to be valid, it would not be permissible for the teachers concerned to take advantage or it because they did not fulfill its. requirements. We do not find any merit in this argument. As has been stated, those teachers were promoted to posts of Professors on the basis of the combined list, they were , recognised as such teacher s by the University, and were recruited initially as Lecturers in History. They were therefore entitled to take the benefit of the resolution dated January 15, 1970, as there is nothing wrong with it. We have no doubt that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there could be no justification for the view taken by the High Court that there was violation of article 16 of the Constitution.
1[ds]The High Court has taken the view that as no attempt was made to produce the resolution dated February 27, 1963 in Nanekars case, there was no such, resolution at all. On that basis, it held that the Director had no authority to take the decision to amalgamate the listsWe find however that in taking that view the High Court lost sight of the intrinsic evidence which was available on the record, to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed the aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalgamate the two lists. We have extracted the Government resolution dated January 15, 1970 and the underlined portions thereof clearly show that the Government itself reiterated the fact that a decision was taken by Government in the year 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in History and Lecturers in Political Science into one common list of Lecturers in History and Political Science. It has further been state d in that resolution of the Government that accordingly, a combined seniority list was prepared with reference to the date of appointment of the officer concerned in the M.E.S. Class 11, irrespective of the fact as to whether the Lecturers are qualified in both the subjects of History and Political Science or in any one of the two. The reason for taking that decision to amalgamate the two lists has also been stated in the resolution. Then it has been stated that in :view of the difficulties experienced with regard to the implementation of the decision of Government referred to above,the Government on reconsideration had decided to revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists of Lecturers of History and Political Science. It has also been stated that the decision had been taken for reverting to the decision to split up the combined seniority list which formed the basis of promotion of some of the teachers. It would thus appear that the resolution dated January 15, 1970, repeatedly refers to the earlier decision of the State Government of 1963 for amalgamating the lists, states the reason for the amalgamation, makes a mention of the difficulties experienced in the implementation of that decision, and gives the reasons for the governments decision to, revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists. As it was not challenged in the High Court that the resolution dated January 15, 1970 was genuine, the High Court should have taken notice of its intrinsic evidentiary value for the purpose of proving the earlier resolution dated February 27, 1963. If it had done so, it would have inevitably reached the conclusion that the Government had really decided in 1963 to amalgamate the lists, and that the Director had rightly conveyed that decision in his order dated August 20, 1963, and it was therefore an authorised communication. In fact the Director specific ally stated in that order that the decision of Government to amalgamate the two lists had to be. brought to the notice of all concerned. The combined seniority list was therefore fully authorised, and there was nothing wrong if it formed the basis of the promotions which were given to the persons mentioned above. We have no doubt that the High Court did not read the relevant document carefully and that was why it arrived at a contrary conclusion.The resolution dated January 15, 1970 shows that as the Government had decided to split up the seniority list for the department of History and Political Science, it thought it desirable to give an .option to those Lecturers/Pro- fessors of the old Bombay State, who were recruited as Lecturers/Professors of History, but were recognised by the University as teachers of Political Science, to elect for either of the two departments. No exception can be taken to that decision to give the option to the Lecturers/Professors concerned for, in the absence of such an option, they would have been deprived of the opportunity of expressing their desire to serve in the one or the other department on the basis of their experience and prospects of promotion. It was to be appreciated that the decision to amalgamate the seniority lists of the two departments was not taken in consultation with them, and if they were required to teach History, or Political Science, and were promoted as Professors of History or Political Science, on the basis of a combined seniority list for which. they themselves were not responsible, it would have been unfair if they had been required to serve in another department by a unilateral executive fiatAs has been stated, those teachers were promoted to posts of Professors on the basis of the combined list, they were , recognised as such teacher s by the University, and were recruited initially as Lecturers in History. They were therefore entitled to take the benefit of the resolution dated January 15, 1970, as there is nothing wrong with it. We have no doubt that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there could be no justification for the view taken by the High Court that there was violation of article 16 of the Constitution.
### Instruction:
Estimate the outcome of the case (positive (1) or negative (0) for the appellant) and then give a reasoned explanation by examining important sentences within the case documentation.

### Input:
working of the invalid list, and amounted to violation of article 16 of the Constitution. This is why the State of Maharashtra, Smt. K.A. Parekh and Smt. R.S. Dossal have come up in appeal by special leave to this Court.The controversy therefore is whether the State government passed. the aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in History and Political Science, as stated in the Directors aforesaid letter dated August 20, 1963, or whether there was no such resolution and the Directors order was unauthorised ? The High Court has taken the view that as no attempt was made to produce the resolution dated February 27, 1963 in Nanekars case, there was no such, resolution at all. On that basis, it held that the Director had no authority to take the decision to amalgamate the lists. 7. We find however that in taking that view the High Court lost sight of the intrinsic evidence which was available on the record, to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed the aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalgamate the two lists. We have extracted the Government resolution dated January 15, 1970 and the underlined portions thereof clearly show that the Government itself reiterated the fact that a decision was taken by Government in the year 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in History and Lecturers in Political Science into one common list of Lecturers in History and Political Science. It has further been state d in that resolution of the Government that accordingly, a combined seniority list was prepared with reference to the date of appointment of the officer concerned in the M.E.S. Class 11, irrespective of the fact as to whether the Lecturers are qualified in both the subjects of History and Political Science or in any one of the two. The reason for taking that decision to amalgamate the two lists has also been stated in the resolution. Then it has been stated that in :view of the difficulties experienced with regard to the implementation of the decision of Government referred to above, the Government on reconsideration had decided to revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists of Lecturers of History and Political Science. It has also been stated that the decision had been taken for reverting to the decision to split up the combined seniority list which formed the basis of promotion of some of the teachers. It would thus appear that the resolution dated January 15, 1970, repeatedly refers to the earlier decision of the State Government of 1963 for amalgamating the lists, states the reason for the amalgamation, makes a mention of the difficulties experienced in the implementation of that decision, and gives the reasons for the governments decision to, revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists. As it was not challenged in the High Court that the resolution dated January 15, 1970 was genuine, the High Court should have taken notice of its intrinsic evidentiary value for the purpose of proving the earlier resolution dated February 27, 1963. If it had done so, it would have inevitably reached the conclusion that the Government had really decided in 1963 to amalgamate the lists, and that the Director had rightly conveyed that decision in his order dated August 20, 1963, and it was therefore an authorised communication. In fact the Director specific ally stated in that order that the decision of Government to amalgamate the two lists had to be. brought to the notice of all concerned. The combined seniority list was therefore fully authorised, and there was nothing wrong if it formed the basis of the promotions which were given to the persons mentioned above. We have no doubt that the High Court did not read the relevant document carefully and that was why it arrived at a contrary conclusion.The resolution dated January 15, 1970 shows that as the Government had decided to split up the seniority list for the department of History and Political Science, it thought it desirable to give an .option to those Lecturers/Pro- fessors of the old Bombay State, who were recruited as Lecturers/Professors of History, but were recognised by the University as teachers of Political Science, to elect for either of the two departments. No exception can be taken to that decision to give the option to the Lecturers/Professors concerned for, in the absence of such an option, they would have been deprived of the opportunity of expressing their desire to serve in the one or the other department on the basis of their experience and prospects of promotion. It was to be appreciated that the decision to amalgamate the seniority lists of the two departments was not taken in consultation with them, and if they were required to teach History, or Political Science, and were promoted as Professors of History or Political Science, on the basis of a combined seniority list for which. they themselves were not responsible, it would have been unfair if they had been required to serve in another department by a unilateral executive fiat. 8. It may be mentioned that Mr. Phadke tried to argue that even if the resolution dated January 15, 1970 were held to be valid, it would not be permissible for the teachers concerned to take advantage or it because they did not fulfill its. requirements. We do not find any merit in this argument. As has been stated, those teachers were promoted to posts of Professors on the basis of the combined list, they were , recognised as such teacher s by the University, and were recruited initially as Lecturers in History. They were therefore entitled to take the benefit of the resolution dated January 15, 1970, as there is nothing wrong with it. We have no doubt that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there could be no justification for the view taken by the High Court that there was violation of article 16 of the Constitution.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
The High Court has taken the view that as no attempt was made to produce the resolution dated February 27, 1963 in Nanekars case, there was no such, resolution at all. On that basis, it held that the Director had no authority to take the decision to amalgamate the listsWe find however that in taking that view the High Court lost sight of the intrinsic evidence which was available on the record, to prove beyond doubt that Government had passed the aforesaid resolution dated February 27, 1963, to amalgamate the two lists. We have extracted the Government resolution dated January 15, 1970 and the underlined portions thereof clearly show that the Government itself reiterated the fact that a decision was taken by Government in the year 1963 to amalgamate the lists of Lecturers in History and Lecturers in Political Science into one common list of Lecturers in History and Political Science. It has further been state d in that resolution of the Government that accordingly, a combined seniority list was prepared with reference to the date of appointment of the officer concerned in the M.E.S. Class 11, irrespective of the fact as to whether the Lecturers are qualified in both the subjects of History and Political Science or in any one of the two. The reason for taking that decision to amalgamate the two lists has also been stated in the resolution. Then it has been stated that in :view of the difficulties experienced with regard to the implementation of the decision of Government referred to above,the Government on reconsideration had decided to revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists of Lecturers of History and Political Science. It has also been stated that the decision had been taken for reverting to the decision to split up the combined seniority list which formed the basis of promotion of some of the teachers. It would thus appear that the resolution dated January 15, 1970, repeatedly refers to the earlier decision of the State Government of 1963 for amalgamating the lists, states the reason for the amalgamation, makes a mention of the difficulties experienced in the implementation of that decision, and gives the reasons for the governments decision to, revert to the old practice of having separate seniority lists. As it was not challenged in the High Court that the resolution dated January 15, 1970 was genuine, the High Court should have taken notice of its intrinsic evidentiary value for the purpose of proving the earlier resolution dated February 27, 1963. If it had done so, it would have inevitably reached the conclusion that the Government had really decided in 1963 to amalgamate the lists, and that the Director had rightly conveyed that decision in his order dated August 20, 1963, and it was therefore an authorised communication. In fact the Director specific ally stated in that order that the decision of Government to amalgamate the two lists had to be. brought to the notice of all concerned. The combined seniority list was therefore fully authorised, and there was nothing wrong if it formed the basis of the promotions which were given to the persons mentioned above. We have no doubt that the High Court did not read the relevant document carefully and that was why it arrived at a contrary conclusion.The resolution dated January 15, 1970 shows that as the Government had decided to split up the seniority list for the department of History and Political Science, it thought it desirable to give an .option to those Lecturers/Pro- fessors of the old Bombay State, who were recruited as Lecturers/Professors of History, but were recognised by the University as teachers of Political Science, to elect for either of the two departments. No exception can be taken to that decision to give the option to the Lecturers/Professors concerned for, in the absence of such an option, they would have been deprived of the opportunity of expressing their desire to serve in the one or the other department on the basis of their experience and prospects of promotion. It was to be appreciated that the decision to amalgamate the seniority lists of the two departments was not taken in consultation with them, and if they were required to teach History, or Political Science, and were promoted as Professors of History or Political Science, on the basis of a combined seniority list for which. they themselves were not responsible, it would have been unfair if they had been required to serve in another department by a unilateral executive fiatAs has been stated, those teachers were promoted to posts of Professors on the basis of the combined list, they were , recognised as such teacher s by the University, and were recruited initially as Lecturers in History. They were therefore entitled to take the benefit of the resolution dated January 15, 1970, as there is nothing wrong with it. We have no doubt that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there could be no justification for the view taken by the High Court that there was violation of article 16 of the Constitution.
