UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus P. K. ROY & ORS.

Ul'ilON OF I!'IDIA & ANR.

P. K. ROY & ORS.

November 9, 1967

[K. N. WA:-.'CHOO. C.J., R. s. BACllAWAT, V. RAMASWA~11. G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE. JJ.J

States Reor1:anisation Act (37 of 1956), s. 115(5)-Power of Cen1'a/ Ciovernment to fix sentority of offu·~rs in rc-orgcl111'.H·d Statt•\·-Prt·lin1i-na,.y work done hy Stale Govern1nent.}-/ i111proper dele~ation.

Natural J11sticl"--Application of rules-Depends on facts of each case. Respondents 1 to 13 were Assistant Engineer, in the State of Madhva Pradesh before it "-'a-; ~organised under the States Reorganisation Act. 1956. After the formation of the new Sta~ of \-ladhya Pradesh. thcv continued to serve in th~ new State along with officers taken O\.'Cr fron1 the absorbed States and regions. and. it became necessary to integrate the service and to fix the inti!r se seniority of the officers of the integrated si:rvice. The Chief Secretaries of tbc various Slates that were to be affected by the roorganisatioo had evolved certain general principles 1hat !'hou!d be observed with regard to the integration ""·ork and the Govern-ment of India informed the State Governments that the work of inrc-g,ration of -serviCL"S should be dealt v.·itb by the State Government<> in 1he light of those principle-;. Thercafll'f, the Stale Government pub-lished provi~ional gradation list of the department to \\o'hich 1he rec.-pondcnt.'\ tx.·longcd and notified, that any go\crnml'Ot ~rvant f·:clin~ aggriC"tcd was cnlitlcd to send his represco1ation to the ('entral Govern-ment. Representations v.·cre received from respondent-; 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and .some other officers. and th:>sc representations were sent by the State Government to the Central Go..,·ernment for being dealt with in con~ulta­tioo with the Advisory Committee it had conc,titutcd for dealing v.[1]ith lhe representations from officers affected hy _the rcorgani'Sation. Since the St.ah..· Government had prepared the lic,t on basis different from thJt !.uggest1..'\J hv the Central GO\.'Crnmcnt the latter dirt."'ClCJ that revised !isl 5;hould IJC prepared on the b~is of the formula laid dov.11 by the C·.!ntral Ciovcrnmcnt. Accordingly, the State (Jo..,·L·rnn1cnt [)C'flt second Ji,t prc-Plf;!d on the basis of that formula, <tnJ the ("cntral Go\-·emmcnt. :n con...1:iult.1tion with the Ad,·isory Committee. cxan1ined both the li"-h .tnd 1h~ rerre5entations of ofticers already rC'Ccivc<l and decided th:it the .-,L-cond gradation lis1· should be approvcJ subjcc1 to C4.'rtain modific,itton-.. and cert.:Un directions in the case of officers from the Mahakoshal region. It wa ... further directed that as the rc-arran~emcot a~ per modificationc, suggt.."h.'d v.·:tc; likely Ill 3fTect the rank-. l,f officer.. of other ~!!ion-.. thl' entire list should he rcvicv.red in 1hc light ol dirccticm" f!t\'l'n hy the ('c.utral Govemm-ent. On 1his dircclion. the Stall' Governmt:'nt rcfi.\ed the lnt,·r 5(' senioritv of officers fron1 the !\-1ahakoshal rL'gion. and there-after. pr .... ,,arcd the tlnal .~radation lic.t and published it.

'Th.t., f\.~dcnt' thcrcup.cm filed tt v.·rit petition in the J-i'igh Co11rt challenging the v;tlidit~· of the final !!f:tdation li~t on two ~round-. : ( 1) thal the Y1nrk of intcf!ration was c_~clu-.iv~ly entrn ... tt"d to'thc Central Government hv s. I IS ( 5) of the Stale-. Reorgani-.:irion Act anJ that tt~ final gr3i.1Jtion ·li-;t a:- puhli,hed ,,_."" ilh:-gJI :1.0d 11/tra ~·ir1'.'i hec;H1.;c,"-tll1..T1..' Y.'<ts L'!lprl"p .. :r delt:'gation of its po\l\.·ers and duties hy the Central Govern-

mcnt to the State Government, and; (2) in the circumstances of the present case the respondents· should have been given another opportunity of making representation before drawing up the final gradation list. The High Court allowed the petition.

In apl'C'll to this Court.

Held : ( l) Even on the assumption that the task of integration was exclusively entrusted to the Central Government, the High Court W"-' in error in holding that there was imoroper delegation of its statutory power by the Central Government. [200G]

In the present case the stel'S take~ by, the Central Government in the matter of integration did not amount to any delegation of its essential •tatutory functions, becaUSe it was the Central Government which laid d°""1 the principles for integration. it was the Central Government which considered the representations and passed final orders, and both the preliminary and final gradation lists were prepared and published bv the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the Ceneral Government. When the Centm! Government intimated that the work of integration should be left to the State Government what w"" meant was that only the preliminary work of preparation of the gradation List on the principles decided upon by the Central Government should be left to the State Government concerned. Such work cannot be done by the Central Government itself as the necessary information regarding tho officers can be obtained and tabulated only by the States concerned, and. there i• nothing in ss. II5 or 117 of the Act prohibiting the Central Governm~t in any way, from taking the aid and assistance of tr.e State Go-.·crnment in the matter of effecting the integration of the services. The principle dele1:atus non potest delegare, cannot be held' to have been violat-l.'d, if statutory authority empowers deleg:ite to undertake preparatory work and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it but retain~ in it> own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after 1t has been taken. In such ""Se the decision will be held to have been validly made if the degree of control maintain""....d by the [1]authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authority's own. [I98E-H; !99D-G]

Pradyat Kui1uir Bose v. The Hon'ble The Chief .lusrice of the Calcutta f{;Rfi Court, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1331, followed.

Board of Education v. Rice, [1911] A.C. 179. Local Government Board v. Arlid11e [1915] A.C. 120 and Fowler (John) & Co. (Leeds) v. Duncan [!941] Ch. 450. referred to.

(2) The doctrine of natural justiec cannot b' imprisoned within the 'trait-jacket of rigid formula and its application depend' upon the nature of the jurl>diction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of !00 persons affected, the icheme and policy of ~ , "1tute- and other relevant circumstances disclosed in particular ca..e. In view of the $pedal circumstances of the present case the res-tJOa<.lc:nts 'ili'ere entitled to se-.!Ond opportunity to make representation with regard to (a) the inter se seniority list of the assistant engineers of the Mlhakoshal region prepared as per the directions of the Central Government. and (b) the combined final gradation list. A' no such opportunity wa.• furnished, the final list. so far as the category affected by tho direction5l given by the Central Government. wa.;:, ultra ,,;res and illegal and that part of the notification mu<t be quashed. [202D-O]

Civil Appeal No. 618 of

CIVIL APPEL LA TB JURISDICTION : 1966.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 3 71 of 1962. ·

Niren De, Solicitor-General, · V. A. Seyid M11ha11wJ, Sarlzthey, for R. II. Dhebar, for the appellants.

A. K. Sen, Rames/nvar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for resr.•ndents Nos. I. 3. 6, 10, 12 and 13.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Rartaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave. from the judpnent of the ~adhya Pradesh High Court dated April 29. 1964 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 371 of 1962. By its judgment the High Court held that the preparation of provisional gradation li<>ts by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the relevant provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), here-inafter referred to as the "said Act". was unwarranted in law and the final list published on April G, 1962 prepared by the State Government under instructions from the Central Government with regard to the integration of oflicers of the Engineering Department was illegal and 11/trn rircs and must be qu<1'hcd by the grant of \\ rit.

The said Act was enacted to provide for the reorganisa1ion of the States 0f India and for matter.s connected therewith and came into force with effect from '.\/ovemhcr I. 1956. Bys. 9( I) of the ,aid Act th2rc 11 '" fonncJ "new Staie·· ro be known as the State of Ma<lhya Pradesh comprising the foll<' II ing tcrritork.s :

Respondents I to 13 were Assistant Engineers in the er.stwhile Stale of Madhya Pr~dcsh. The first four of them were appointed '" such on probation from October 27. 1956 and the others had been appointed as temporal)' Engineers. The rc;ponGents con-tinued to serve in the n~w Stale and new "Buildings, Roads and

Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department"" was consti-tuted with the officers taken over from the absorbed States and regions. The integration of the services became therefore neces-sary and principle had to be evolved for integration. of the ser-vices and fixing inter .1e seniority as several officers had been taken over into the reconstituted branch. Section 115 of the said Act provided as follows :

"115. Provisions relating to other services :

(I) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the Union under the administrative control of . the Ljeutenant-Governor or Chief Commissioner in any of the existing States of Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Kutch and Vindhya Pradesh, or is jerving in connection with the affairs of any of the existing States of Mysore. Punjab, Patiala and East Punjab States Union and Saurashtra shall, as from that day, be deemed to have been allotted to serve in connection with tne affairs of the .successor State to that existing State.

existing State. . ' . (2) Every person who inunediately before the ap-pointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of an existing State part of whose territo ries is transferred to another State by the provi-sions of Part II shall, as from that day, provi-sionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the principal successor State to that existing State, unless he is required by general or '\ special order of the Central Government to p serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of any other successor State.

( 3) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the succcs~or State to which every person referred to in sub-section (2) shall be finally allotted hr service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.

( 4) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section ( 3) to successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in that successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments·· concerned. and in

default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government. ·

( 5) The Central Government may by order esta-blish one or more Advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard tcr-

(a) the division and integration of the services among the new States and the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras; and

(b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treat-ment to all persons affected by the provi-sions of this section and the proper consi-deration of any representations made by such persons.

....................................

Section 116 provided for :he continuance of officers in the posts they previously held and s. 117 empowered the Central Go\·ern-ment to give directions to the State Government in respect of their integration.

Section 1 I 7 enacts :

"The Central Government may at any time before or after the appointed day give such directions to any State Government as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provi-sions of this Part and the State Government shall comply with such directions."

Subsequent to the passing of the said Act meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the various States that were to be affected by the reorganisation was held at Delhi on May 18 and 19, 1956 at the invitation of the Central Government. In this meeting certain ~ecisions were taken as to the general principles that should be observed with regard to the integration work. By their letter No. 62/22/56 SR 11 dated April 3, 1957 (Annexure R-I of the counter-affidavit) the Government of India informed the State Governments that they had decided that the work of integration of services should be dealt with by the State Governments in the light of general principles already '.lecided in the meeting of the Chief Secretaries. The State Governments were also informed that the Central Government was constituting Advisory Com-mittees for assisting them in dealing with the reprcsentatiotLs from the officers affected by reorganisation. With regard to the prin· ciple for detennining equation of posts and relative seniority the following conclu~ions were reached at the conference of the Chief Secretaries :

"It was agreed that in determining-the-equation of posts, the following factors should be· borne in mind :-(i) the nature and duties.of post;

.(ii) .th,e responsibilities and powers exercised· by the -officer holding post; the extent of territorial or 8 other charge held or responsibilities discharged; the minimum qua:lifications, if.any, prescribed for ' reeruitment to the post;

(~v) the salary of the post;·,

It was agreed that in determining relative seniority as between two persons holding posts declared equivalent to each other, and drawn from different States, the following points should be taken into account :-

(i) Length of continuous service, _whether tempo-rary. or permanent, in particular grade; thls . --should exclude periods ·for which 'an appoint-· ; ment is held in purely stop-gap or· fortuitous arrangement; -(ii)_ age of the person; other factors being equal, for instance, seniority may be determined on the . basis of age. · ---

-Note : It was also agreed that as far as possible, the· inter se seniority of officers drawn from _the same State should not be disturbed."

Ily notification dated May~20,' 1958 (Annexure R-2 of the counter-affidavit) the Government of India constituted Central Advisory Committee under s. 115(5) of the said Act for the pur-F pose of assisting the Central Government in dealing :with· the pro- _ blems arising out of the allocation and integration of the services. The functions of the Committee were : . . ·

"(i) To advise the Central" Government in regard to the division and integration of members of the ·gazetted cadres of the State Services among the new States and the States of Andhra Pradesh.~nd Madras, and

(ii) To make reco111111endations to .the Central Gov- . ~ ernment with.a view to enstire that fair and equi-table treatment is given to the service personnel _ belonging to the Gazetted cadres of the State Services who are affected by the State Reorgaqi-_ sation ·and to consider representations submitted .. by them." · · ·

As directed by the Central Government, the State Government also appointed the necessary committees to undertake the prc'li-minary work of integration. On September 12, 1959 provisional gradation list of the department to which the respondent> bc-longee was published by the State Government by notilieation l\o. 3175-Integ. dated September 12, 1959. In the preamble attached to the provisional list the principles (which were already approved by the Central Government) on the basis of which the lish were prepared, were set out. But there was proviso to cl. ( 2) of the preamble which said that .. where service or cadre consi;ts of compartments/ grades and where the normal method of recruit-ment to higher compartment/grade is by promotion from lower compartment/ grade, continuous service will ordinarily be re-ckoned from the date of commencement of service in the lowest compartment/grade, on salary not below such limit as may be specified in this behalf... Representations were received from several officers including resj)Ondents 1 to 4, 6 & 7. These repre-sentation_s were sent by the State Government to the Central Gov-ernment for being dealt with in consultation with the Advisory Committee it had constituted. Thereafter reference was made by the State Government to the Central Government seeking its directions regarding publication of the final lists. In reply there-to the Central Government conveyed its decision by letter dated November 11, 1959 to the following effect :

"I. The State Government should publish the final

common gradation list in its oflicial gazette following the prescribed procedure:

2. The State Government will prefix to the notifica-

<ion publishing common gradation list. preamble on the lines drafted by the Central Government;

3. The State Government was to be satisfied :

(a) that the provisional gradation list was prepared after following the principles laid down by the Central Government;

( b) that it was published in the official gazette;

(c) that an opportunity was afforded to the service personnel to make representations;

( d) that the representations, if any, had been decid-ed by the Central Government in consultation with the Central Advisory Conunittee;

( e) that the decisions of the Central Government were correctly incorporated in the final common gradation list."

In their letter dated August 29, 1960 the Central Guvernment pointed out that .the State Government had prepared the provisio-nal gradation list not on the basis of continuous service in the equated grade but on the basis of length of total service including service in the lower grades. The State Government was there-fore directed to prepare an alternative gradation list on the basis of the conventional formula of continuous service in the equated grade subject to maintenanee of imer se seniority. The State Governme_nt complied with this direction. In their letter dated September 16, 1961 the Centr_al Government said that t1'e proce-dure adopted by the State Government for determining inter se seniority on the basis of length of total service in gazetted posts could not be approved. On the contrary, the decision of the Central Government was that int.er se seniority should be determin-ed on the basis of continuous length of service, whether in tem-porary or permanent capacity in the equated grade, and the second list prepared by the State Government on that basis was approved subject to two modifications, (i) The ranking of t.'J.e officers from Bhopal region (Serial Nos. 60 tu 70) should be re-arranged as per It rankings given by the Union Public Service Commission. (ii) In the case of officers from Mahakoshal region ( Ser:al Nos. 59 on-wards) it was pointed out that the then S.tate of Madhya Pradesh had not passed orders fixing the ranking of the said officers and hence the ranking sholild be done by the State Government keep-ing in view the normal rule of fixing ranks with reference to date of appointment on substantive vacancy, whether on probation or as confirmed officer. It was further directed that as the re-arrangement as per modifications suggested was likely to affect the ranks of officers of other regions the entire list should be reviewed in the light of directions given by the Central Government. On this direction of the Central Government, the inter se seniority of the officers ofMahakoshal region was refixed by the State Govern-F ment by its letter No. 1086/6216/XIX/E dated February 20, 1962. In the light of this list the provisional gradation list was also reviseq. ~s already directed by the Central Government in its letter dated November 11, 1959, the State Government publish-ed the final gradation list with the preamble attached to it stating that the final list was being published by the Goven:ior in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and in accordance with the decisions of the Government vf India under the provisions of s. 115(5) oL the said Act. The final gradation list was published by the State Government on April 6, 1962.

The respondents thereafter moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for grant of writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The validity of the final gradation list was challenged on the ground that it was not made in accordance with the_ provisions of s. 115 ( 5)

·of Lh<'. said Act but in contrav.ention of that provision. It was also alleged ihat in so f<tr as th" State Qoven1ment, in drawing up the final gradation Jg;_t, follo'ijed principle different from 1 the one followed in prcpa,rjng'thc.provj>ional gradation list on the basis of w)lich representatiop~ were. invitecl; the State G9vemment i)ad in " ·effect denied the right of representation tp the •. p,ersons. aifected thereby. The writ petition v..;as allowed by th,e High Court_.which ·quashed the notification dated April 6, 1962 (Annextrre 1 to the writ petition) publishing the final grad.ation. list of the establish· .ment of "Buildings, Roads and Irrigation" in the P,ublic Works Department and fur.ther directed the Central Government "to con~plete the work of the integration of the services in the iJfor~aid Department in conformity wit!\ the .provisiqns of sub-s .. ( 5) of s. Vi 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 19.56" . ~

Th·e first question tp ;be c9nsidcred in this ap~al is whether the High Court wus right in taking the view tliat ihe work o(.integra-1ion was exclusively entrusted to the Central Governnien.t by s. I J.5 ( ,5J of.tlip.,said A.ct_ and tbat the final gradation list p~1{1ished ,Qn ~pnl (). 1962 was illegal ,and· ultra virer as the delega:t19n of iLs powers an,d d.utics by the Centr<tl Government tq the State Gpv-.ernment in r~gard to integration was noi in accordance with law.

Under· re'.' \ 62 of the Constitution it is provided as follows :

.. ·162'. ·Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, "the executive power of State shall extend to the. matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State 'has power to make Jaws : ..

. Pr~vided that ip. any matt~r wiih respect to whicli the Legislature of State and. J>arliaipent lj,ave power to make laws, the exe'cµtive power qf,the State shall be sub-

. jec,t to .. and }imited,.by, lhe' e,xecµtive power expressly •conferred by)J:iis Constitution . or by any law made by Parlia!T1ent upop the Union q~ ·autl)orities thereof."

·As regards the matters ill respect of which the Legislature of State has the pow'er to •make Jaws, item 42 iri List II of the Seven}h Schedule to the Constitution speeifies "State Public· Ser· . vices", and under the provisions of Art. 162, the executive power ·of the State extends to• Spte Public Services: 'This power is, haw-·cver, subject. 10 the other provisions pf the Constitution. Article 'J09' states : ,,,

''Subject to.,thc provisions of Jhis Constitution., Ac~ of the appropriate Legislature 11,rny regulate the recruit-ment. and c.011di.tions of service.1of P<;rsons appointed, to public services <1nd -posts in conpection with tlje affairs <Of the Union or of any State :,

Provided that it shall be competent for the President or snch person as he may direct in the case of :IBrvices and posls in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posls in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the re-II cruionent, and the conditions of service of persons ap-po'inted, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under ~.n Act of the appropriate Le:gislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act." Under this Article, the Governor of State is empowered in the case of services and posls in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating t11e recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posls until pro-vision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of an appropriate Legislature. Article 2 of the Constitution enacts that Parliament may by law admit into the Union or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Article 3 of the Constitntion states that Parliament may by law-( a) form new State by sepa-ration of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to part of any State; ( b) increase the area of any State; ( c) diminish the area of any State; (d) alter the boun<laries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State. Article 4 provides as follows :

" ( 1 ) ·Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be neces-sary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and conse-F quential provisions (including provisions as to repre-sentation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legisla-tures of the State or States affected by such law) as Par-, liament 111ay deem necessary. ·

By· virtue of the power 'lllder Art.- 4 the. said Act \YaS enacted. On behalf of the appellanls the Solicitor-General put forward the argu-ment that the power of integration is not e.xclusively conferred upon the Central Government under s. 115(5) of the said Act.but the power of the State Government in the matter of integration · under Art. 162 read with Entry 42, List II remains unaffected except to the extent that the State Government must carry out the directions of Central Government in the matter of integration. The opposite view-point was presented by Mr. Asoke Sen on behalf of the respondents. It was contended 'hat under s. 115(5) of the

saiJ Act the Central Government was g:1en, by necessary implica-llon, the exclusive power to integrate and the word "allotment" in s. 115 ( 3) & ( 4) carries with it the necessary power of fusion and intei,'Tation. We do not propose. for the purpose of the present case, to decide which of these view-points as to the interpretation of s. 115(3), s. 115(4) ands. 115(5) of the said Act is correct. We shall assume in favour of the respondents that s. 115(3), s. 115(4) ands. 115(5) read together confer exclusive power on the Central Government in regard to integration. Even on that assumption we do not agree with the finding of the High Court that there was improper delegation of its statutory powers and duties by the Central Government. that there has been violation of the provisions of s. 115 ( 5) of the said Act or that the final gradation list published by the notification dated April 6, 1962 is illegal and 11/tra vires.Generally speaking, the work of integration requires the for-mulation of principles on which the work has to be carried out, the actu"I preparation of preliminary gradation lists in accordance with the principles so settled, the publication of the list~ together with the principles upon which they have been compiled, the invi-tation of representations by the persons affect¢ thereby, the consideration of representations and decisions upon those repre-sentations, and the publication of the final gradation list incorpo-rating the decisions of the Central Government on the representa-tions submitted. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Central Government laid down in their letter dated April 3, 1957 the principles with regard to the equation of po~s and determina-tion of relative seniority as between two persons holding posts dec-lared equivalent to each other and drawn from different States. It also appears that the Central Government appointed two ad\lisory committees for dealing with representations from the service personnel affected by the reorganisation. As directed by the Central Government in their letter dated April 3, 1957, the State Government also appointed two committees for the purpose connected with integration. There-after, the State Government prepared provisional list fixing the i111er se seniority of officers who had come into the cadre from different regions. The list wa~ published and it w::.~ notified that ·any Government servant feeling aggrieved by the provisional list was entitled to send his representation to. the Central Government. The principle ur-:in whic~ the IL~t was prepared was published and it was notified that the principle was subject to. any sub.~quent · moJification at the direction of the Central Government. Repre-sentations were thereafter received from officers including respon-dents I to 4. 6 & 7. The representations were sent to the Central Government to he dealt with in consultation with the advisory committees that were constituted. On consideration of these representations the Central Government directd the State Gov-

ernment to forward the alternative list prepared on the basis of the conventional formula laid down by the Central Government. As already observed, the State Government had proposed that seniority should be fixed on·the basis of continuous service includ-ing that in the lower grade, but the Central Government had direct-ed that continuous service in the equated grade alone should be taken into account for fixing the seniority subject only to the maintenance of inter se seniority of the officers coming from seve-ral integrating regions. The Government of India therefore direct-ed that revised list should be prepared on the basis of this formula. Accordingly, the State Government sent second list prepared 9n the basis of the conventional formula, viz., continuous service in the equated gr~ le subject to maintenance of inter se seniority. The Central Government thereafter in consultation with the advisory committee examined both the lists and after taking into account the representations made, conveyed to the State Government its decision by its memorandum dated September 16, 1961 with regard to the preparation of the final gradation list. The decision thus communicated may be summarised as follows : ( 1) Inter se seniority should be detennined only on the basis of continuous length of service, whether in temporary or permanent capacity in the equated grade, (2) the second gradation list pre-pared according to this principle and forwarded to ,the Central Government was approved subject to certai'l modifications in the equations and the changes proposed in accordance with. the deci-E sions on the individual representations. As regards inter se seniority of the Mahakoshal officers, the Central Government stated in paras 9 & 10 of the letter :"9. In respect of the Mahakoshal officers shown from serial No. 59 onwards it is seen that no formal orders were issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government prior to 31st October, 1956 fixing the rank of each officers. While approving the notification confinning an officer, it was customary in old Madhya Pradesh to issue order regarding the rank which he would obtain in the seniority list. In respect of the confirmation orders issued during October, 1956, it appears that no such orders were issued. If the present ranks in the Com-bined Gradation List were to be accepted, it would mean that some of the officers who were not selected by the Public Service Commission of the old Madhya Pradesh for permanent posts would be senior to those selected and placed on probation as early as 1953. The nonnal practice adopted in such cases would appear to be to arrange the names of the officers in the order of ap-pointment to substantive vacancy whether on pr0ba-tion or as confirmed officer. In respect of officers

appointed to substantive vacancies with effect from the ~ame date, the normal practice was to arrange the names on the ba1is of length of continuous service. Where departure from this principle wa1 intended. specific orders were issued or the names arranged in t.he desired sequence in the confirmation orders itself.

I 0. re-arrangement of the names of the Bhopal and Mahakaushal officers in the manner indicated abov<' is matter concerning the respective parent State senio-rity lists. However, re-arrangement of the names of these officers would have repercussions on the ranh of officers from other regions. It is, therefore, suggested that tho entiro matter may be reviewed by the State Government in the light of the position stated in the two pm:eding paragraphs and the necessary changes carried out in the Combined Gradation List."

In accordance with this direction .r.he State Government prcparc-tl the inter se seniority list of Mahakoshal officers (Annexure R-.14) dated February 20, 1962. On the basi.1 of this list the final gra· dation list was prepared by the State Government and published on April 6, 1962.

In our opinion, the procedure adopted in this case docs not contravene the provisions of s. 115 ( 5) of the said Act. because it was the Central Government which laid down the principle:-. tor integration. it was the Central Goverrunent which corlsideroo the representations and pa1scd fin;,! orders, and both the preliminary and final gradation lists were prepared and published by the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the Ceu-tral Go,·ernment. It is manifest that there has been no delega-tion by the Central Government of any of its essential function' entrusted to it under the statute. It wa1 pointed out by Mr. Asoke Sen that in its letter dated April 3, 1957 the Central Gov-ernment had intimated that the work of integration should be left to the State Government. But what was meant by that icttcr was that only the preliminary work of preparation of the grada-tion list1 on the principles decided upon by the Central Govern-ment should be left to the State Governments concerned. It b· - clear that such work cannot be done by the Central Governn :nt itself since the necessary information regarding the officers can be obtained. and tabulated only by the States concerned. It wa.' also pointed out by Mr. Asolce Sen tbat the preparation of the prn-visional and the iinal gradation lists by State Government consti-tuted delegation by the Central Government. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. It is not disputod that the provisional and the final gradation lists were prepared by th~ State Government on the principles laid down by the Ccntrnl Government itself subject to one change in the matter of determin-ing seniority and the provisional gradation list was sent for appro-val of the Central Government together with representations made by the officers concerned for being dealt with and decided upon by the Central Government. The priilciple of the maxim "dele-. ga111s. non palest de/egare" has therefme no application to th.: present case. The maxim deals with the extent to which statu-tory authority rnay permit another to exercise discretion en-trusted by the statute to itself. It is true that delegation in its ~eneral sense does not imply parting with statutory powers ry the authority which grants the delegation, but points rather to the· conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that admi-nistrative authority would have to do for itself; If, however, the administrative authority named in the statute has and retains in its hands general control over the activities of the person to whom it has entrusted in part the exercise of its statutory power and the control exercised by the administrative authority is of substan-tial degree, there is in the eye of law no "dele~ation" at all and the maxim "de/egatus non palest de/egare"' does not apply [See Fowler (John) & Co. (Leeds) v. Duncan]('). In other words, if sta•· tutory authority empowers delegate to undertake preparatory work and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it but ietaim· in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the de<::ision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have been validly made if the degree of control maintained by the autho-E rity is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the autho-rity's own. In the context of the facts found in the present case· we are of opinion that the High Court was in error in holding that there ha' been an improper delegation of its statutory powers and duties by the Central Government and that the final gradation list dated April 6, 1962 was therefore ultra vires and illegal. Even on the assumption that the ta<;k of integration was exclusively en-trusted to the Central Government. we arc of the opinion that the steps taken by the Central Government in the present case in the· matter of integration did not amount to any delegatipn of its essen-tial statutory functions. There is nothing in ss. 115 or 117 of the said Act which prohibits the Central Government in any way from taking the aid and assistance of the State Government in-G the matter of effecting the integration of the service.,. So long as the act of ultimate integration is done with the sanction and appro-. val of the Central Government and so long as the Centr.al Govern-ment exercises general control over the activities of the State Government in the matter. it cannot be t.eld that there has been any violation of the principle "de/egatus non palest de/egare". For· instance, it was observed by this Court in Pradvat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'b/e The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court(') :

(2) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1331, 1345:

"It is well-recognised that staulory functionary exercising such poy;cr cannot be ,;aid to have delegated his functions merely by deputing responsible and com-pelcnl ofticial 10 cnyuire and report. That is the ordi-nary mode of exercise of any administrative power. What car,ol be cklcgatcd except where the law >pecifically "° provides-is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power:·

That is the ordi-What "° of Education v. and convenient,

As pointed out by the House of Lords in Board of Education v. Rice('), functionary who has to decide an administrative matter. of the nature involved in this case, can obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasible and convenient, provided only the affected party "has fair opp0rtunity to correct or contradict any relevant and prejudicial material". The same principle was reiterated by Lord Chancellor in Local Gorernmcnt Board v. Arlhif~e( ') in the following passage:

"My Lords. 1 concur in this view of the position of an administrative body to which the decision of ques-tion in dispute between parties has been entrusted. The result of its enquiry must, as I have said, be taken. in the absence of directions in the statute to the contrary. to be intended to be reached by its onJinary procedure. In the case of t'1e Local Government Board it is not doubt-ful what this procedure is. The Minister at the head of the Board is directly responsible to Parliament like other Ministers. lie is responsible not only for what he him-self does but for all that is done in his department. The volume of work entru.sted to him is very great and he cannot do the great bulk of it himself. He is expected to obtain his materials vicariously through his officials. and he has discharged his duly if he sees that they obtain these materials for him properly. To try to extend his duty beyond this and to insist that he and other members of the Board should do everything personally would be to impair his efficiency. Unlike Judge in Court he is not only at liberty but is cornpelled to rely on the assistance of his staff.""

We accordingly reject the argument of Mr. Asoke Sen on this aspect of the case and hold that the High Court was in error in holding tha: t'1ere was an improper delegation of its statutory power by the Central Government under s. 115 ( 5) of the said Act.

We proceed to consider the next contention raised on behalf -of the respondents that in any event they ~hould have been 2iv-~n

~ll (l'Jll) .A. C. 1'9, JS,.

(') (t9J<] A. C. t,l, DJ.

second opportunity to make representation regarding : ( 1) inter .~e seniority list of the Assistant Engineers of the former MahaKoshal region prepared on February 20, 1962, Annexure R-14, and (2) the final -inter se seniority list published on April 6, 1962. '¥ith regard to the inter se seniority list it was pointed out by Mr. Asoke Sen that in paragraphs 9 and 1 0 of its letter dated September 16, 1961, Annexure R-7, the Central Govem-B ment noticed that no formal orders were issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh prior to October 31, 1956 fixing the rank of the Mahakoshal officers from serial No. 59 onwards. It was custo-mary in the old State of Madhya Pradesh that the Government issued .orders regarding .the rank of the officers while making notification confirming the officers. It was pointed out that if the present rank in the combined gradation list was to be accep<ed it would mean that some of the ..Jfficers who were not selected by the Public Service Commission of the old Madhya Pradesh for per-manent posts would be senior to those selected and placed on pro-bation as early as 1953. The normal practice adopted in such cases would appear to be to arrange the names of the officers in 0 the order of appointment to substantive vacancy, whether on pro-bation or as confirmed otlicer. It was suggested by the Central Government that the entire matter should be reviewed by the State Government in the light of the procedure stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the letter and necessary changes should be carried out in the combined gradation list. In view of the directions contain-E ed in.this letter the State Government prepared an inter se seniority list of the Assistant Engineers of the Mahakoshal region in their letter dated February 20, 1962. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that this order of seniority was reflected in the final gradation list published on April 6, 1962; but the contention of the respondents is that no opportunity was given to them to make representation against the inter se seniority list dated February 20, 1962, though Mr. Asoke Sen conceded that he' bad no quarrel with the principles upon which the list was prepared. Learned Counsel, however, said that the principles were wrongly applied in particular cases and th~ respondents should have been given an opportunity of making representation with regard to the inter se seniority list dated February 20, 1962. With regard ·to the final gradation list published on April 6, 1962 the contention of Mr. Asoke Sen was that the basis upon which the "assumed date" was given in column No. 6 was not set out either in that notifi, cation or in the principle specified in the preliminary gradation list. On this point the Solicitor-General said that the final grada-tion list was prepared and the "assumed date" in cc;lumn No. 6 wa-; inserted on the principle of "kicking down". It was also pointed out by the Solicitor-General that in the Conference cf the Chief Secretaries it had been agreed that in detem1ining inter-State seniority the principle to be. taken into account was length of 10 SDp. C.1./67-14

continuous service, whether temporary or permanent in particu-lar grade. The argument was stressed that the principle co&Jd be appl~ed only on the basis of .. kicking down" and that principle was 1mphc1t m lhe preparallon of the final grndation lbt. We arc. however, not qt;itc sure whether the Solicitor-General is ri~ht in hi' contention on this point. We think thal the final gradation Ji,t could have been prepared on the ba.>is of the principle agreal upon in the conference of lhe Chief Se..:rctaries both on the method of .. kicking clown .. and the alternativ"e method of "kicking up". It is nowhere stated either in the prcliminary gradation list or in the tinal gradation list that the principle of "kicking down" was adopt-ed in preference to the alternative principle. It was argued by Mr. Asoke Sen that in regard to both these matters the respon-dents have right of representation and the final gradation list should have been published after giving them further opportunity to make rcpre'l!ntation. Nonnally speaking, we should have lhought that one opportunity for making representation against the preliminary li;r published would have been sutlicient to sati,fy the requirement> of law. But lhc extent and application of lhe doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within lhc strail-jacket of rigid fom1ula. The application of the doc1rinc depend' upon the nature of the juri,diction conferred on the administrative authority. upon lhe character of the rit:hh of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the \tatute and other rdcvant cit-cum.'-tanccs disclo.,cd in the particular case (Sc~ the decision of thb Coun in Shri Bhaf?Y."<in and Anr. v. Ram Chaid and Anr.([1]). In view of the >J>l'Cial cin:umstanccs of th·! pr..:sent case we think that the respondents were entitled to an opportunity to make repre-sentation with regard to the two points urged by Mr. 'oke Sen before L~e Jina! gradation list was published. As no such oppor-tunity was furnished to the respondents with regard to these tw<• matters we hold that th~ combined final gradation list .dated April 6, 1962. so far as categllry 6 i' concerned. is ultra !'ires and illegal and that part of the noti"ication alone mu.st be quashed by grant of writ in the nature of ccrtiomri. The rest of the notification of lhe State Government dated April 6, 1962 with regard to other categories will stand unaffected. So far as cate~ory No. 6 i' con-cerned, the Central Goverruncnt is directed to give an opportunity tc> the respondents to make representation in regard to the twn point' mentioned in this paragraph and thereafter take steps tn finalise and publish the list in accordance with law.

We accordingly modify the order of the High Court and allow lhis appeal to the extent indicated above. There will he no ordL·r wilh regard to costs in thi' Court.

Appeal al/owrd in '"'''