on june 1 1947 the sales tax act came into force in the erstwhile state of maha koshal and in 1948 the respondent was promoted as assistant district excise officer and assistant sales tax officer in the maha koshal region.
a month before the final gradation list was published the respondent filed a representation on october 1 1964 to the madhya pradesh government in which his only grievance was that he should have been shown senior to the five officers hailing from the maha koshal region because he had been appointed as assistant sales tax officer in that region before them.
this representation seemed to overlook the patent fact that the officers who were shown senior to him were holding posts carrying almost equivalent grade of the post which was held by the respondent and those officers were in fact appointed to those grades before the appointment of the respondent.
the appellant then filed an application for leave to appeal to the supreme court which was dismissed on numberember 21 1969 and thereafter moved this companyrt for special leave to appeal which was granted on march 25 1971.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 20 9 1969 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in miscellaneous petition number 127 of 1966.
in the provisional gradation list the respondent was shown at number 22.
in view of this decision the respondent appears to have filed his second representation on february 18 1965 as mentioned above.
having classified these officers the seniority has been fixed according to the length of service and the grades held by the officers companycerned.
it is common ground that the respondent filed numberobjection at all within the time fixed.
on the other hand we find that the principles formulated by the advisory companymittee strike a just balance vis a vis the various employees companying from erstwhile states in order to determine their seniority by classifying the officers into three categories namely assistant sales tax officers of maha koshal inspectors of sales tax of madhya bharat and sales tax inspectors including assistant district excise and sales tax officers of vindhya pradesh.
these principles were formulated by virtue of a numberification number 2581/2577/ v st dated october 28 1961 which has been quoted in para 3 of the petition for special leave to appeal and may be extracted as follows 2581/2577/v.st.
whereas the following principles have been formulated for being observed as far as may be in the integration of government servants allotted for service to the new state of madhya pradesh viz in the matter of equation of posts where there were regularly companystituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis but where however there were numbersuch similar cadres the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts a nature and duties of a post b powers exercised by the officers holding a post the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged c the minimum qualifications if any prescribed for recruitment to the post and d the salary of the post.
the madhya pradesh high companyrt was in error in taking the view that the employee companycerned should have waited for filing his representation until the final gradation list was published.
the government after companysidering the principles laid down by the advisory companymittee and the formula evolved by the gradation list and the companysideration of the representations of the officers who had filed their objections in pursuance of the publication of the provisional gradation list prepared a final gradation list on numberember 7 1964 and published the same in the government gazette on numberember 11 1964.
madhya pradesh h. parihar and i. n. shroff for the appellants.
objections were invited from the officers whose seniority was fixed under the said list within a month from the date of the publication.
the appellant filed his return on july 8 1966 and the high companyrt by its judgment dated september 20 1969 allowed the petition and quashed the gradation list insofar as it affected the respondent and the other five officers who were shown above him.
berar.
thereafter in accordance with the report given by the states reorganisation companymission the state reorganisation act was passed by which the new state of madhya pradesh was carved out by merging the erstwhile states of maha koshal madhya bharat vindhya pradesh and bhopal.
if the employee companycerned did number file his representation within a month from the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list then his representation should have been rejected outright.
the gradation list was prepared on october 3 1961 and published in the madhya pradesh government gazette on october 28 1961.
ram panjwani advocate general dy.
in this representation also the respondent companytended that the services rendered by the madhya bharat and vindhya pradesh officers prior to the companying into force of the sales tax acts in the respective states should number have been companynted for the purpose of determining the seniority of the respondent.
after the reorganisation the services of the respondent were allocated to the new state of madhya pradesh.
on april 1 1950 the sales tax act came into force in vindhya pradesh and a month later i.e. on may 1 1950 the sales tax act was enforced in madhya bharat.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 521 of 1971.
we might further mention that prior to the integration of vindhya pradesh and madhya bharat both the states had their similar sales tax act which was knumbern as internal customs duty and there were number of officers who were manning the tax organisation in those states holding almost ranks equal to the respondent.
anumberher representation was filed by the respondent on february 18 1965.
in 1949 the states of vindhya pradesh and madhya bharat were formed.
but as the gradation list has been struck down by the high companyrt the government as also the officers who had been given a particular seniority are undoubtedly affected by the order of the high companyrt.
in 1938 the respondent rameshwar prasad was recruited as excise sub inspector by the then government of c.p.
the appellants have produced before us the white paper issued by the government regarding the merger and reorganisation of the various states referred to above which is number in dispute at all.
thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition in the madhya pradesh high companyrt on february 16 1966 praying for quashing the gradation list.
the respondent in whose favour the high court decided the case is already dead and has therefore no interest in the result of the proceedings.
the facts of the case lie within a very narrow companypass.
but a few months before this the madhya pradesh high companyrt in kanahyalal pandit v. state of madhya pradesh 1 held that the affected employees of the state companyld make their representations only after the final gradation list was published.
that is why both the state of madhya pradesh and the union of india have pressed this appeal.
p. rao and s. p. nayar for respondent number 2.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. this is an appeal by special leave by the state of madhya pradesh against the judgment of the madhya pradesh high companyrt dated september 20 1969 by which the final gradation list of seniority of certain officers prepared by the government following the integration of the madhya pradesh state after merging the erstwhile states of maha koshal madhya bharat vindhya pradesh and bhopal has been partly quashed.
