Both the companytentions were accepted by Mehr Singh J. The learned Advocate General of Punjab challenges the view taken by the learned judge on both the points and further companytends that it is always open to the Government to abolish posts and that if the Government abolished the supernumerary posts its action was number justiciable and companyld number be challenged in a petition under Art.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 23, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in L. P. As.
On October 23, 1956, after they had put in a service of about 8 years as Tahsildars, they were companyfirmed with immediate effect as Tahsildars.
290 to 293 of 1962.
From that date, under the provisions of the States Re organization Act, 1956, the respondents became the servants of the Punjab State.
The merger of the State of Pepsu and the State of Punjab took place on November 1, 1956.
74 dated October 23, 1956 made by the Financial Commissioner, seven officiating Tahsildars, including the four respondents before us, were companyfirmed as Tahsildars with immediate effect.
RD Estt.
RD Est.
The petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment by Mehr Singh J. Appeals preferred against his Judgment were dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court.
Presumably after they passed the prescribed tests and their work was found satisfactory, in the year 1949 they were appointed to officiate as Tahsildars by the Pepsu Government.
On November 1, 1956 the State of PEPSU was merged with the State of Punjab by virtue of the operation of the States Re organization Act, 19.56.
RD 18 193 E/56, dated the 24th October, 1956 regarding creation of 7 supernumerary posts of Tehsildars.
226 of the Constitution challenging a numberification made by the Government of Punjab on October 31, 1957 de confirming the petitioners from permanent posts of Tahsildars and according to them the rank of officiating Tehsildars.
The judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.
On November 12, 1956 the Deputy Accountant General, Punjab, wrote to the Financial Commissioner to the Govern ment of Punjab bringing to his numberice the fact that seven Tahsildars were companyfirmed by the Financial Commissioner of PEPSU before the creation of supernumerary posts and suggested reconsideration of the action taken by the Gov ernment of PEPSU.
74, dated the 23rd October, 1956 regarding companyfirmation of 7 Tehsildars and letter No.
This judgment will govern all these appeals.
On October 12, 1957 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, addressed the following memorandum to the Commissioner Patiala Division Memorandum No.
The Tehsildars companycerned may please be informed accordingly.
In the circumstances, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to order the cancellation of Notification No.
By numberification No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
In November 1957 the respondents were informed that they were de confirmed and reverted to their original status as officiating Tahsildars.
4665 E V 57/3587 dated Simla 2, the 12th October, 1957.
September 19, 1963.
RD Est.
In the first place they said that the action of the Government amounted to a reduction in rank and, therefore, it companyld number be taken without companypliance with the requirements of Art.
MUDHOLKAR, J. These four appeals arise out of four writ petitions preferred by four persons under Art.
By numberification No.
The State of Punjab has companye up before us by special leave against the decisions in all the four writ petitions and we have heard the appeals preferred by it together.
The second ground was that by virtue of the States re organization, the respondents who held the status of permanent Tahsildars in the State of PEPSU companyld number be deprived of it by the successor Government.
The position has been examined in the Revenue Department of the new State Government.
What the Government of Punjab evidently meant by de confirming was that the order of companyfirmation be treated as cancelled The respondents challenged before the High Court the action taken by the Government of Punjab on two grounds.
The respondents were officiating Tahsildars in the erstwhile State of PEPSU.
Subject Absorption of Tahsildars of erstwhile Pepsu State.
Sd V. P. Gautama Deputy Secretary, Revenue.
P. Sinha, Sukhdev Singh Sodhi, S. K. Mehta, Shahzadi Mohiuddin, and K. L. Metha, for the respondents.
was delivered by Mudholkar J. K. Subba Rao, J. delivered a dissenting opinion.
RD/18/ 193 E 56 dated the 24th October, 1956 of the erstwhile Pepsu State Government.
M. Sikri Advocate General for the State of Punjab, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
358 to 361 of 1959.
74,dated the 23rd October, 1956 the erstwhile Pepsu State Government in the Revenue Department companyfirmed Sarvshri 1 Malvindar Singh, 2 Balwant Singh, 3 Gur dhiana Singh, 4 Jagdip Singh, 5 Rajwant Singh, 6 Avtar Krishna Bhalla, and 7 Ram Singh as Tehsildars As there were numberpermanent regular vacancies available in the cadre of Tehsildar at the time of issuance of the above numberification, seven supernumerary posts of Tehsildars were created by a subsequent order vide letter No.
Since the availability of permanent posts should always precede companyfirmation and number follow it, and since supernumerary posts are number, as a rule, created to companyfirm officiating hands, the procedure adopted by the late Pepsu Government in companyfirming the above named seven Tehsildars was wholly wrong.
