The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the State of Tamil Nadu. When the post of Chief Secretary to the state fell vacant he was selected for the post and was accordingly promoted.

Soon the post of Chief Secretary and First Member of the Board of Revenue were brought to the same category.

The petitioner was appointed to that post and was entitled to the same rank and emoluments as admissible to the Chief Secretary but he did not join this post and went on leave. On the petitioner’s return from leave the post of Deputy Chairman was created for one year in the grade of the Chief Secretary and he was approved to that post.

A representation was made that the continuance of the post of Deputy Chairman in the rank of Chief Secretary for a period of more than one year would be invalid under the Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Thereby Government created a temporary post of Officer on Special Duty but he did not join it too.

The post of Deputy Chairman was abolished and a First Member of the Board of Revenue was appointed to that post.

He filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary, on the following grounds:

• It was contrary to the proviso of Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Services Pay Rules, 1954.
• It was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the posts of Deputy Chairman, Special Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty were inferior in rank and status to that of Chief Secretary.
• It was made in mala fide exercise of power.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court held that the two posts were created for discharging functions requiring very high caliber and specialized experience and were not to be counted as any less responsible than the topmost cadre posts for which the petitioner was selected. The wide experience of the petitioner in the field of commercial taxes made the Government post him as Officer on Special Duty.

The posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and officer on Special Duty are equal in status and responsibility.

There was also no ground for attributing bad faith or improper motive by the Government against the petitioner.

The affidavit evidence indicated that the petitioner carried out normal duties and exercised care and caution at the time of the election and gave advice in course of duty. The Government in all cases accepted the advice of the petitioner.

There also did not appear any instance of acrimony or disagreement between the Government and the petitioner and there were no records to suggest that the petitioner advised one way and the Government acted in an opposite manner.

The Chief Minister cannot be said on the affidavit evidence to have committed acts of violence and intimidation, thus the entire affidavit evidence establishes that the petitioner’s allegations imputing mala fides against the Chief Minister were baseless.

For these reasons the contentions of the petitioner failed, the petition was dismissed and each party was made to pay and bear the costs.

-LAWZ BUREAU