Topic: Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348, Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Palekar, D.G., Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Krishnaiyer, V.R. - CITATION:  1974 AIR  555, 1974 SCR  (2) 348, 1974 SCC (4) 3 - DATE OF JUDGMENT 23/11/1973

ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 32-Fundamental Right-Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules 1954 r. 9 sub-r. (1)- Declaration of equivalence-Mere violation of rule does not involve infringement of fundamental right.

Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 16-Transfer of acting Chief Secretary to non-cadre posts in the same grade as that of chief Secretary-Appointment and confirmation of junior in the post of Chief Secretary-Material on record must show that non cadre posts are inferior in status and responsibility.

Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954-Rule 9 sub- rule (1)Making of declaration sine qua non of exercise of power' under sub-rule.

Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954-Rule 4(2)- Scope of second proviso.

Mala fides-Onus-Grave imputations against holder of office with high responsibility-court would be slow to draw inferences from incomplete facts.

HEADNOTE: The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu. in November, 1969, when the post of Chief Secretary to the State fell vacant the petitioner, as the best suited, was selected for the post. The draft order in regard to the appointment approved by the Chief Minister. the second respondent. stated that the petitioner "is promoted and posted as Chief Secretary vice [R] retiring from service with effect from the afternoon of November 13. 1969". The final order in the name, of the Governor, duly authenticated, issued on the same day, stated that the petitioner "is promoted and posted to act as Chief Secretary to Government vice [R] who has been granted refused leave...... " The petitioner was accordingly promoted as Chief Secretary. On the recommendation of the State Government that the posts of Chief Secretary and First Member of the Board of Revenue should be deemed to be in the same category and should be inter-changeable selection posts the Central Government by notification dated January 14, 1970 provided that the pay of First Member, Board of Revenue was to be the same as that of the Chief Secretary. The post of First Member Board of Revenue was thus equated to that of the Chief Secretary in rank and status. By notification dated August 31, 1970 the Government of India enhanced the pay, rank and status of the Post of Chief Secretary to that of the Secretary to the Government of India and that post was raised above every other cadre post in the State including the post of First Member, Board of Revenue. On April 17. 1971 the State Government accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman in the State Planning Commission in the grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year and appointed the petitioner to that post providing that he shall be entitled to the same rank and emoluments as admissible to the post of Chief Secretary. The petitioner did not join this post and went on leave. On the petitioner's return from leave the post of Deputy Chairman was again created for a period of one year in the grade of the Chief Secretary and the petitioner was appointed to that post. Against this the petitioner made a representation 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 r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Next the State Government created a temporary post of officer on Special Duty for streamlining and rationalising the Sales Tax Act, "in the grade of Chief Secretary to the Government and appointed the petitioner to that post". He did not join this post too and proceeded on leave. After the petitioner was transferred from the post of Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and appointed Officer on Special Duty for revision of Sales Tax laws the State Government abolished the post of Deputy Chairman sanctioned under the earlier order and sanctioned the creation of a new post of Deputy Chairman in the Grade of First Member. Board of Revenue" on a pay of Rs. 3000/- per month and appointed a First Member of the Board of Revenue to that post. Besides, on the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary a person who was admittedly junior to-the petitioner was promoted as Chief Secretary and was confirmed in that post.

The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary, first to the post of Deputy Chairman State Planning Commission and then to the post of officer on Special Duty, on the following grounds : viz. (i) it was contrary to the proviso to r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and r. 9[sub- r.(1)] of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules 1954; (ii) it was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty were inferior in rank and status to that of Chief Secretary; and (iii) that it was made in mala fide exercise of power, not on account of exigencies of administration or public service, but because the second respondent was annoyed with the petitioner on account. of various incidents referred to in the petition and wanted him out of the way.

Dismissing the petition, HELD : Per Chandrachud, Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, JJ : (i) The promotion of lie petitioner as Chief Secretary was only in an acting or officiating capacity and not in a substantive capacity. The draft order does not say whether the promotion is in a substantive capacity or in an officiating capacity. It is the authenticated order which says for the first time clearly and definitely by using the words "to act" that the promotion is in and officiating capacity. The authenticated order, in so far as it uses the words "to act" does no more, than speak on a matter on which the draft order was silent. The authenticated order correctly reflects the final decision of the State Government. There is, thus no inconsistency between the draft order and authenticated order from which any error can be spelt out in the authenticated order. [378H-379E] The respondents are not correct in contending that the authenticated order was the final order and it was not open to the Petitioner to say that it did not correctly reflect the order as made by the State Government. It is now well settled law that when an order is authenticated the only challenge that is excluded by the authentication is that it is not an order made by the Governor. The validity of such an order can be questioned on other grounds.' [378A-C] King Emperor v. Shivnath Banerjee, 72 I.,A. 241 and State of Bihar v. Sonabati, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 746, referred to. (ii)The second proviso to r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules has no application. The proviso, merely confers limited authority on the State Government to make temporary addition to the cadre for a period not exceeding the limit therein specified. The State of Tamil Nadu could not add the posts of Deputy Chairman. State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty under the second proviso, as these posts did not exist in the Cadre as constituted by the Central Government. They were new categories of posts created by the State Government. [380A-E]

(iii)The making of a declaration setting out which is the cadre post to which a non-cadre post is equivalent is sine qua non of the exercise of the power under sub-r. (1) of r. 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. [381C-D]

The determination of equivalence is therefore a condition precedent before a member of the Indian Administrative Service can be appointed to a non-cadre post under sub-rule (1). The government must apply its mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post and determine the equivalence. Where it appears to the Court that the declaration of' equivalence is made without application of mind to the nature and responsi- bilities of the functions and duties attached to the non- cadre post or that extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the equivalence or that the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties of the two posts are' so dissimilar that no reasonable man can possibly say that they are equivalent

in status and responsibility, or that the decision of equivalence is mala fide or in colorable exercise of power or it is a mere cloak or displacing a member of the Indian Administrative Service from a cadre post which he is occupying, the court can and certainly would set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil servant. [382A-F]

The order dated April 7, 1971 sanctioning the creation of temporary post of Deputy Chairman and appointing the petitioner to the post has not in it any trace of a declaration that the State Government found, on an objective assessment of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post of Deputy Chairman, that it is equivalent in status and responsibility to that of Chief Secretary. Further, the post of Deputy Chairman cannot be declared equivalent in status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary at one time and to the post of First Member Board of Revenue at another. The nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties remaining the same the equivalence which is a matter of objective assessment, could not vary from time to time. This clearly shows that the Government did not apply its mind and objectively determine the equivalence of the post of Deputy Chairman, but, gave it a rank or grade according as who was going to be appointed to it. But the petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the validity of the appointment since in the letter dated June 7. 1972 addressed to the second respondent-he accepted the appointment without demur as he thought that the post of Deputy Chairman "was of the same rank and carried the same emoluments as the post of Chief Secretary". [384A-G]

Similarly in making the orders dated June 26, 1972 and. June 27, 1972 the State Government did not apply its mind and objectively determine the equivalence of the post of Officer on Special Duty, but gave it a rank or grade accord- ing as who was the officer going to be appointed to it. There was thus no compliance with the requirement of r. 9 sub r.(1). But the petitioner cannot get relief in a petition under Art. 32 since mere violation of r. 9 sub. r. (1) does not Involve infringement of any fundamental right. [385F-386B]

(iii)The contention that the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer on Special Duty coupled with the promotion and confirmation of a person junior to the petitioner in the post of Chief Secretary was arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16, though it may seem plausible, cannot be accepted, because, there is no adequate material to sustain it. The premise on which this contention is founded is that the posts of Deputy Chairman and officer on special duty were not of the same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary. It cannot be said on the material on record that the validity of this premise has been established by the petitioner. So far as the post of Deputy Chairman is concerned the petitioner himself accepted that post as. being of the same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary. Even though it is not possible to accept the thesis that the post of officer on special duty was equal in status and responsibility to that of the Chief Secretary,. equally, it is not possible to hold it established on the material on record that this post was inferior in status and res- ponsibility to the post of Chief Secretary, though prima facie it does appear to be so. The challenge based on Arts. 14 and 16 must. therefore, fail. [388C-389E]

(iv)(Concurring with Ray, C.J.): The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The onus of establishing mala fides against the second respondent has not been discharged by the petitioner. The Court would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. [390D-F]

Per Ray C.J. and Palekar. J: (i)The petitioner was not appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary. The gazette notification prevails over the draft order, The previous incumbent in the post of Chief Secretary held his lien on the post until the date of his actual retirement. The effect of fundamental rules 86 and 13(d) as they stood prior to the commencement of the Constitution is that an officer does 'not continue on duty but draws leave salary by virtue of a I privilege granted to him. There is no formal extension of service. He retains lien on his post. The post

cannot be substantively filled till he actually retires from service. Therefore, the petitioner did not have any right to hold the post of Chief Secretary. [355A-C, G] (ii) It is not the case of the State that the post of Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty are cadre posts within the meaning of r. 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre ) Rules 1954. The second proviso to r. 4(2) of the Cadre Rules does not confer any power on the State Government to alter the strength and composition of the Cadre. The meaning of the second proviso to r. 4(2) is that the State Government may add to the cadre for the period mentioned there one or more posts carrying duties and responsibilities of the like nature of a cadre post. The posts so added do not become posts [356C-G] (iii)The real significance of Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules is that members of Cadre posts cannot be deployed to non-cadre posts unless posts are of a caliber which can be filled up by cadre men. The purpose of the declaration that the post is equivalent in status and responsibility to post specified in the schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules is to ensure that members of the cadre are not taken to posts beneath their status and responsibility. The declaration is not one of mere form. It is of substance. A declaration in writing is desirable. The absence of a declaration will not be an impediment in ascertaining the equivalent status and responsibility. Similarly, the presence of a declaration may not be conclusive if the declaration is a mere cloak. The facts and circumstances has to be looked into in order to find out whether there is in real substance equality in status and responsibility. [358B-F; 36OH; 361C]

The posts of Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and the Officer on Special Duty were created for cadre officers to discharge duties and responsibilities of a high order and must be counted as no less responsible than the top most cadre posts. These posts were not created all of a sudden with any oblique purpose. When the petitioner was posted to the new posts he was permitted to draw his salary as Chief Secretary and when a First Member Board of Revenue was appointed he took with him his salary as First Member. When the petitioner was to occupy the post of Deputy Chairman or Special Officer the post was graded to give him his old scale of pay and when the First Member was appointed to these posts he was given his old scale as First Member. That the posts of Chief Secretary and First Member were interchangeable, though the former got a higher salary, was recognised by the State Government and also endorsed by the Central Government in 1970. There was therefore no upgrading or down grading of the posts [361G-362-G]

The petitioner who was in the selection grade could thus be transferred to any of these two posts of Deputy Chairman Planning Commission or Officer on Special Duty which were posts not lower in status and responsibility to the cadre posts in Schedule III of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules 1954. and which carried the same salary as that of the Chief Secretary. The services of cadre officers are utilised in different posts of equal status and responsibility because of exigencies of administration and for employing the best available talent on the suitable post. There is no hostile discrimination in transfers from one post to another when the posts are of equal status and responsibility. [362G-363D]

(iv)(Chandrachud, Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, JJ concurring) The entire affidavit evidence establishes beyond any measure of doubt that the petitioner's allegations imputing mala fides against the Chief Minister are baseless. The allegations of mala fides are not contemporaneous but after thoughts at a distance of one year. The petitioner's allegations are in aid of suggesting vindictiveness and vengeance on the part of the Chief Minister. Facts and cir- cumstances repel any such insinuation and innuendo. [371H- 372F]

Re: Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 284 of 1972. Under Art. 32    of the Constitution    of India for    the enforcement of fundamental rights.

A.K. Sen, S. J. Rana, U. N. R. Rao, V. Selvaraj and R. R. AgarWala for the. petitioner.

S. Govind Swwninadhan, M. C. Setalvad, Ratnavel Pandian, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, Habibulah Basha, N. S. Sivan, D.    Raju and A.    Subashini, for respondent no. 1.

S.V. Gupte, S. Ratnavel Pandian, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, D). Raju and A. Subhashini, for respondent no. 2. F. S. Nariman and M. N. Shroff, for intervener. The Judgment of,, A. N. RAY , C.J. and D. G. PALEKAR J.    was delivered by RAY, C.J. A separate    opinion    of Y.    V. CHANDRACHUD, P.    N. BHAGWATI and V. R. KRISHNA IYER,    JJ. was given by BHAGWATI, J.

RAY, C.J. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of    the Constitution asks for a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction    or order directing    the respondents to withdraw and cancel the order dated 27 June, 1972. The petitioner further asks for direction to re-post the petitioner to the post of Chief Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu.    The respondents are the State of Tamil    Nadu and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner    is a member of    the Indian Administrative Service    in the cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu. On 2 August,    1968 the petitioner was confirmed in the Selection Grade of the Indian Administrative Service with effect    from 22 May, 1961.    There were 8 Selection Grade posts in    the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was No. 4 in that list. The petitioner in the years 1964, 19;65, 1966, 1968 and 1969 was posted to act as Fifth Member, Board of Revenue; Fourth Member, Board of Revenue; Third Member, Board    of Revenue; Second    Member,    Board    of Revenue. On 5 April, 1969    the petitioner was    posted to act as Second Member, Board of Revenue. On 11 July, 1969 the petitioner was posted to    act as Additional Chief Secretary-

On 11 July, 1969 the post of Additional Chief Secretary    was temproraily created in the grade of Chief, Secretary for one year. The State Government further directed that, the    post of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and the First Member, Board 'of Revenue    were deemed    to be    in the same category and they    were inter- changeable selection posts.

On 7 August,    1969 the State of Tamil Nadu wrote to    the Central    Government to amend Schedule III-A of    the Indian Administrative    Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 so that the posts of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and First Member, Board of Revenue could be of the same cadre carrying the same pay.    The Government of India by a letter dated 26 September, 1969 stated that    the status    of Chief Secretary as the head of the    Secretariat Organisation in the State should remain unquestioned.    The view of the Central Government was that the status of Chief Secretary should not    be allowed to    be diluted by    the creation of the post of Additional Chief Secretary carrying emoluments as the Chief Secretary.The Central Govt. the same status    and also stated that the post of Additional Chief Secretary was    not a cadre post. The Central    Government, however, expressed the view that the post of First Member, Board of Reventue in the State should 'carry pay its    ad- missible to the Chief Secretary.

On 13    November, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as Chief'    Secretary to    Government with effect from    the afternoon of 13 November, 1969 vice C.A. Ramakrishnan whose date of superannuation was. 14 November, 1969 who has    been granted refused level with effect from 14 November, 1969. On 7 April, 1971 the petitioner was appointed Deputy Chairman. of the State Planning Commission. That post    was created temporarily for a period of one year in the grade of Chief Secretary to Government.The petitioner did not    join the post. The petitioner went on leave from 13 April,    1971 to 5 June, 1972. When the petitioner was on leave Raja Ram, the First Member, Board of Revenue was by an order dated 18 August, 1971 asked to hold the additional charge of the post of Deputy Chairman for one year with effect from 13 August, 1971.    On 6 June, 1972 the petitioner returned from leave. He was again. posted as Deputy Chairman, State. Planning Commission on    a salary of Rs. 3500/- per    month.    The petitioner did not join that post. The. petitioner pointed out that the post of Deputy Chairman which was created    for one year did not exist after 13,April, 1972. By an order dated 27 June, 1972 the Government of Tamil Nadu accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary post of Officer on Special Duty in the grade of Chief Secretary, to Government for    a period of one year    from the date of appointment or    till the need for it ceased whichever    was earlier. By the same order the petitioner was    transferred and appointed    as Officer on Special    Duty in the    post sanctioned' aforesaid.    The petitioner did not join that post. The petitioner in the month of July, 1972 filed    this petition.

The petitioners contentions    were these.    First,    the petitioner is appointed to a post or transferred to a    post which is not    validly created. The post of    Officer on Special    Duty is said to be not a post carrying    duties    and responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts within    the meaning    of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre)    Rules,. 1954.    Second, under rule 9 of    the Indian Administrative    Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 no member of    the Service    shall    be appointed to a post other than a    post specified in Schedule    III unless the State Government concerned in respect of posts under its control or the    Cen- tral Government in respect of posts under its    control, as the case may be, make a declaration that the said Post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the    said Schedule. It is, therefore, said that    the Petitioner who    is a cadre post holder, viz.,    holding    the post of Chief Secretary cannot be posted to a non-seheduled Post without a declaration that the nonscheduled post is equal in status and responsibilities to a scheduled post. Third,    the petitioner    is posted to an office which is inferior in status and office to that of    the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the order is a hostile discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16. Fourth, the creation of    the post as well    as the; appointment and transfer of    the petitioner to the post is malafide.

In this context it is to be ascertained as to    whether    the petitioner was appointed to the substantive post of Chief Secretary to the state    ate of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner relied on draft order of the chief Minister dated    13 November, 1969 which. stated that    the petitioner "is promoted and posted as Chief Secretary".    The petitioner also relied on the following note of the Chief Minister at the time of the passing of the order. There were 1 1 senior I.C.S./I.A.S. Officers borne on the Tamil Nadu State Cadre. The petitioner's position was No. 10 in the list of Senior I.C.S./I.A.S. Officers borne on the Tamil Nadu State Cadre. Ramakrishnan, the then Chief Secretary was N o. 1 in the list. Kaiwar, Subramanyam, Mani, Govindan Nair, Vaidyanathan, Ramachandran, Raman, Raja Ram    were :above the petitioner in the list. Ramakrishnan and Kaiwar were retiring from :service in the month of November, 1969. Subramanyam and Govindan Nair were acting as Secretaries to the Government    of India. Vaidyanathan was away from    the State for over 8 years and was working under    the Central Government. Ramchandran and Raman also working under    the Government of    India since 1955 and    1959 respectively. Rajaram    had left the State Cadre in 1960. In 1969 Rajaram was the Special Representative to the Government of Tamil Nadu. The choice was between Mani whose position was No. 4 and the petitioner. Mali's work was not satisfactory during the flood relief operations in 1967.    There    was adverse criticism on his work from the public and the    press.    The petitioner was    commended by his superiors to    be dynamic, efficient, vigorous.    The petitioner was,    therefore, described by the Chief Minister to be best suited for    the post.

It thus appears that the Chief Minister's note as well as the draft order stated that the petitioner was promoted    and posted    as Chief Secretary. But the Gazette    Notification dated 13 November, 1969 was    that the petitioner    was "promoted and    posted    to act as Chief Secretary to    the Government vice C. A. Ramakrishnan, who has been granted refused    leave    with effect from 14 November,    1969".    The gazette notification prevails over the draft order. The substantive appointment of the petitioner was in    the selection grade of Rs. 1800-2000.    The petitioner    was appointed on 13 November, 1969 to act as Chief Secretary. It. was, a temporary appointment. He was not appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary. The fact that the petitioner was not appointed substantively to the    post of Chief Secretary will appear from the note signed by    the petitioner himself on 16 November, 1970. When    Ramakrishnan went on refused leave for four months from 14 November, 1969 there was no    substantive vacancy in    the post of Chief Secretary. The petitioner in his note dated 16 November, 1970 stated that the post of Chief Secretary fell vacant- substantively from 14 March, 1970 and    was available    for confirmation of an officer. The petitioner signed the    note as acting Chief Secretary. The note was put up as to whether    there    'was any objection in confirming    the petitioner as Chief Secretary.    No ,order was passed on that note.

Under Fundamental Rule 56(f) a member of the Indian Civil Service    shall retire after 35 years' service counted    from the date of ,his arrival in India. Ramakrishnan completed, 35 year's service on 14 November, 1969. When    the petitioner    was posted on 14 November, 1969 to act as Chief Secretary, Ramakrishnan    went on what is described as refused leave for four months. Under Fundamental Rule: 86 clause (c) the grant of refused leave extending beyond the date on    which a Government servant    must compulsorily retire or beyond the date    upto which a Government servant has been permitted to remain in service, shall not be construed as an extension of service. Fundamental Rule 13(d) provides that a    Government servant ceases    to retain lien on a permanent-post while he is on refused    leave    granted after    the date of    compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 or corresponding other Rules.    The effect of refused leave under the Fundamental Rules is that there is no extension of service by the period of that leave.    Again, during the period of refused leave there. is no earning of pension. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Fundamental Rules 56(f) and 86(c) and contended that the post of Chief Secretary fell vacant as Ramakrishnan did not hold a lien on his post.

It was contended that the petitioner was appointed in    an, officiating capacity to the post of Chief Secretary    and reliance was placed on Fundamental Rule 9(19).    Under    that Rule a    Government servant officiates in a post when he perform the duties of a post on which another person holds a lien or the Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint a Government servant to officiate in a vacant post on which no other Government servant holds a lien.

Ramakrishnan, who was on refused leave being a member of the Indian Civil Service, was entitled under Article 314 of    the Constitution to conditions    of service as respects remuneration, leave and pension to which members of    the Civil    Service    were    entitled immediately    before    the commencement of the Constitution. Fundamental Rule 13(d) as it stood prior to the commencement of the    Constitution provided for the retention of lien on a permanent post while on heave without making any exception with regard to refused leave.    Fundamental Rule 86    as it stood prior to    the commencement of the Constitution did not contain    any provision to the effect that the grant of refused, leave would not amount to extension of service. The Government of India, Finance Department Notification No. 520-CSR dated 31 May, 1922 contained the Government decision that the grant of leave under Fundamental Rule 86 automatically carried with it the extension required and no formal sanction to the extension was necessary. The effect of Fundamental Rules 86 and 13(d) as they stood prior to the commencement of    the Constitution is that an Officer does not continue on    duty but draws leave salary by virtue of a privilege granted to him. There is no formal extension of service.    He retains lien on his post. The post cannot be substantively filled till he actually retires from service.

The Fundamental Rules of the Madras Government corrected upto 30 June, 1966 issued by the Finance Department, 2nd Ed. 1966 at pages 133-134 contain a note appended to Fundamental Rule 56 of Tamil Nadu State Government. In that note an exception in respect of Indian Civil Service    Officers is created    by providing that in the case of an Officer of    the former Secretary of State Service the grant 3 56 of such leave shall be treated as sanctioning an extension of service upto the    date on    which    the leave expires. Therefore, Ramakrishnan held    lien on his post until 14 March, 1970.

The petitioner    in the note for circulation    dated 14/16 November, 1970    prepared by the Joint Secretary, Public Department, noted that the    date    of retirement    of Ramakrishnan would take effect from the ,date of expiry of the refused leave, namely, 14 March, 1970. That is why    the petitioner asked to be confirmed as Chief Secretary    with effect    from 14 March, 1970. The petitioner was, however, not confirmed in the post. Therefore, the petitioner    was not substantively appointed to the post of Chief Secretary. The petitioner's substantive    appointment was in    the selection grade of Rs. 1800-2000. The    petitioner ,during the period of refused leave of Ramakrishnan acted as Chief ,Secretary by    way of a temporary    arrangement.    The petitioner did not have any riot to hold the' post of Chief Secretary.

It was contended that neither the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission nor the post of Officer on Special    Duty was a cadre post within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The Additional Solicitor General as well as the Advocate General of    the State did not contend that either of the posits was a cadre post within the meaning of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules.    The strength and composition of the cadre as contemplated by Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules is to be determined by the Central Government in ,consultation with the State Government. The relevant provision is sub-rule (2) of Rule 4. It states that    the Central    Government shall at the interval of every three years reexamine the strength and composition of each    such cadre in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned and may make such alterations as it deems fit. There are two provisos in the sub-rule.    The first proviso states that nothing shall be deemed to affect the power of the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of the cadre at any other time.    The second proviso    states    that the State Government may    add for a period    not exceeding    one year and with the    approval of Central    Government for a further period not exceeding    two years, to a State or joint cadre one or more posts carrying duties and responsibilities of a like nature of cadre posts. It, therefore, follows that the strength and composition of the cadre shall be determined by regulations made by    the Central    Government in consultation    with    the State Government. The State Government alone cannot alter    the strength and composition of the cadre., The aforementioned second proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Cadre Rules does not confer any power 'on the State Government to alter the strength and composition of, the cadre. If    such power were conferred    on the    State    examination of    the strength and composition. at the interval of    every three years by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government would be nullified.    The meaning of    the second    proviso to rule 4(2) is that the State, Government may. add for a period mentioned there to the cadre one or more posts 35 7 carrying duties and responsibilities of the like nature of a cadre post. The posts so added do not become cadre; posts. These temporary posts do not increase the strength of    the Cadre.    The addition    of the    post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission or Officer on Special Duty to the Indian Administrative    Service    Cadre of Tamil Nadu State is    not permissible because that would result in altering    the strength and composition of the Cadre. The State has no such power within the second proviso to rule 4(2) of    the Cadre Rules.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission as well as the post of Officer on Special Duty was not equivalent in    status    and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary to Government within the meaning of Rule 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. The petitioner alleged that both the posts, were upgraded or downgraded depending upon    the persons    to occupy them and therefore the posts were.    not equivalent in status and responsibility to the post of    the Chief Secretary. When the petitioner was appointed to    the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning    Commission it    was upgraded. When Rajaram was appointed to hold an additional charge    of Deputy Chairman in addition to the post of First Member,    Board    of Revenue it    was downgraded. When    the petitioner was    appointed to occupy the post the post    was said to be equivalent to that of Chief Secretary.    When Rajaram was appointed it was downgraded to the level of    the First Member,    Board of Revenue. The post of, Deputy, Chairman, Planning Commission was created for one year in the month of    April, 1971. On 26 June, 1972 the State created    a new post of Special Officer for Commercial Taxes which was stated to be of the rank of Member, Board of Revenue. On 27 June, 1972 the petitioner was appointed to that post in the grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year or till the need of the post ceased whichever    was earlier. The petitioner alleged that on 26 June, 1972    when the post of Special Officer for Commercial Taxes was created it was    supposed to be, of the rank of a Member, Board of Revenue    but on 27 June, 1972 the post was upgraded    and regarded as of the grade of Chief Secretary. When the petitioner did not take charge as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission on 7 April, 1971, the Government directed Rajaram, the senior most officer in the State    who was the First, Member, Board of Revenue to hold additional charge.    Again when the petitioner did not join on 6 June, 1972 as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, it was decided    to post Rajaram in his place.    Rajaram was drawing only a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month.    The post of Deputy Chairman was to be filled either by the petitioner or by Rajaram. The post was not    inferior. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the Government like    the Planning Commission at the Centre. The Chief    Minister is the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The petitioner was drawing    a salary of Rs. 3500/per month when he acted as Chief Secretary. Therefore, the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission carried a pay of Rs. 3500/per month when the petitioner    was appointed as Deputy Chairman of    the Planning Commission. The upgrading' and the downgrading of the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission alleged by. the Petitioner is    not correct. The Post was not    upgraded or downgraded. The incumbent of the post carried a higher or a lower salary according to the salary enjoyed by the incumbent at the time of the appointment.

Broadly stated, the petitioner's 'contentions about the    two posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and    the Officer    on Special Duty were first    that there was-no declaration in accordance with Rule    9 of    the Indian Administrative    Service    (Pay)    Rules that the    posts    were equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the Schedule to the aforesaid Rules; , secondly, that the functions and responsibilities of the two posts were.    such that no comparison could be made between those posts and the posts in the Schedule, Rule 9 speaks of a declaration that the post is equivalent in status and    responsibility, to a    post specified in Schedule III to those Rules. Sub-rule (4) of rule 9 states that where equation of posts is not    possible the State Government or    the Central Government may, for sufficient reasons    to be recorded in writing appoint a member of a service to such a post without making a declaration. It is, therefore,. said on behalf of the    petitioner that a declaration in writing is necessary where a post is declared to be equivalent in status and responsibility just as reasons    are to be recorded in writing where    it is    not possible to    have a    post equivalent in    status    and responsibility.    in other words it is said that in one case it is    a declaration in positive terms that the post is equivalent in    status and responsibility and in the other case the declaration is negative in content that though    the post is not equivalent in status and responsibility yet a cadre officer of the Service is appointed to such a post. It is    not in dispute that the posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and the Officer on Special Duty carried the same pay as that of the Chief Secretary. It cannot be said that equal pay will by itself alone be decisive of    the equation of status and responsibility of the post. But pay scale will primarily show status and    responsibilities of equal nature.

The Chairman of the.Planning    Commission is    the Chief Minister. The    Planning Commission is a high powered Commission., The position of the Deputy Chairman is equal in status    and responsibility to the duties of, the Chief Secretary. The real significance of aforementioned Rule 9 is that Members of Cadre posts cannot be deployed to    non- cadre posts unless posts are of a caliber which can be filled up by Cadre men.

It also appears that the State since the year 1970 had    been contemplating the setting up of a Planning Commission.    In the month of March, 1970 the Finance Department prepared a note that a Planning Commission was necessary in industrial project, power project and irrigation.    A properly organised plan for a region is to be an adjustment of the continuing rate of growth of economic product and a plan of continuing investments. A plan of long term development is necessary. Such a plan would spell out the various resources which    can be utilised and the manner in which the fuller life can be attained by the people.    The Finance Department of the State in 1970 advocated en-

35 9 gagement of a    group of qualified economists    to work in collaboration with the Institute of Economic    Growth,    New Delhi.    The State wanted to set up an Institute of Economic Planning, to work with the advice of the National Council of Applied    Economic Research.    A separate department    of planning was suggested by the State. The reason was to have the advice of experts with knowledge    in the    specialised field.

The petitioner as the Chief Secretary on 23 March, 1970    did not accept the advice of the Finance Secretary of,    the State.    The was against the proposal to entrust    formulation of plan to a body of experts. The    petitioner advised utilising the    services of senior officers of Government department and    enlisting the services of experts in    any particular sphere of    activity or project,    if found necessary. The Chief Minister on 25 December, 1970 recorded a note    that a 10-year plan    was necessary.    The State Planning Commission was set up in the month, of April, 1971. The Planning Commission was to consist of Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Members, Secretary and Deputy Secretary.    The Chief Minister was to be the Chairman.    A full time officer in the    grade    of Chief Secretary was    to be    the Deputy Chairman. The    Planning Commission was to    achieve    the declared objectives of the Government to promote a rapid rise in the standard of living of the people.    The other objects    were to see that the, ownership and control of    the material resources of the community are so distributed as to sub-serve the common good. The character and content of the Planning Commission shows that the Chairman being the    Chad Minister the Deputy Chairman was equal in    status    and responsibility to the post of the Chief Secretary. The State Government    in the    year 1969 sanctioned    the constitution of a    statistical cell for preparing scientifically processed data of production and the source of production of various commodities liable to sales tax. A scientific analysis was also made of the pattern of, trade and revenue accruing from different sections,of the trade. In the    month of August, 1970 the Government examined    the suggestion of the Commissioner, Commercial    Taxes    to constitute an    expert committee to look into    the various aspects    of sales tax.    In the month of October, 1970    the Chief,    Minister indicated    that a committee might to constituted for going into the working of the sales    tax law and to suggest methods for simplification of the'- legislative measures. In the month of April, 1971 the Chief Minister reviewed the important aspects of administration of Commercial Taxes Department. The were persistent demands from one section of the trade for single point levy. There were also demands from the other section for changing    the existing single point items to multi point levy (if sales tax. The idea of appointing a committee was still engaging the attention of the Government. A note was prepared by the Revenue    Department with regard to    constitution of a committee to undertake a comprehensive study of the sales tax structure in the State. Eventually the Government in the month of June, 1972 decided to appoint a senior Indian Administrative Service officer for    "Streamlining    and, relationalising" the structure of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Art and similar enactments relating to Commercial Taxes and Rules made thereunder.

-L522SupCI/74 The State General Sales Tax and other Commercial Taxes    for long contributed the preponderant share towards the revenue receipts of the State.    Sales Tax played a significant    role in the context of development programme of the State. These taxes fetched Rs. 112 crores in 1971-72. The General Sales Tax Act was enacted    in 1959. In    order to meet    the situations arising from changing patterns of trade    and commerce, the interpretations of the Act by courts of    law, the discovery of loop-holes in the statutory frame-work, the Sales Tax Act    has been amended from time to    time.    The Chambers of    Commerce represented    Government    for simplification    and rationalisation of the tax.    structure and statutory    pre measures and practices' It    is in    this context that the State Government created the 'Post of Officer on Special Duty.

The Officer on Special Duty was entrusted to deal with these matters. First,-there    is to be general review of    the commercial Taxes Acts from the point of view of the rate of growth    of revenue in relation to the rate of growth of income    and the rate of growth of commerce and industry. Second, the Sales Tax Act, the Entertainment Tax Act,    the Local Authorities Finance Act, the Motor Spirit Taxation Act, the Betting Tax Act being all State Acts and    the Central Sales Act could be rationalised and simplified so as to facilitate    easy administration and also    to reduce hardship to the trading community.    Third,    the present classification    of commodities taxed at single point    and multi point is to be studied in order to find, out as to what extent there, is a case for transfer of commodities from multi point to single point and vice versa. Fourth, it is to    be found out    whether there    is any need    and justification for the continuance of the concessional    rate of taxation under the General Sales Tax Act on components coming under single point levy, and, if so, whether there is a case    for extending    the same consession to all raw materials. Fifth, measures are to be found to improve    the procedure of inspection, search and seizure in order to make them more effective and. at the same time to minimise    the apprehension of harassment on the part of    the trading community. Sixth, measures are to be taken to make    the check post more effective and arrangements for the collation and interpretation of data collected at the check posts    and the cross verification of such data with assessment records are also to be made. Seventh, measures to ensure regular and systematic flow of vital data such as tax    yield from, various    comes and changes in trade practices affecting    tax yield to the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) are to be devised and arrangements are to be made for their collation and. interpretation to facilitate-tax policy. These are some of the principal duties and responsibilities of the officer on Special Duty.. These duties indicate in no uncertain terms the the post of Officer on Special Duty is of enormous magnitude and importance    in formulation    and shaping    of the revenue structure of the The    duties    and responsibilities of the Officer on Special Duty are beyond any measure of doubt equal in status and responsibility to those of the Chief Secretary.

It was    conntended on behalf of the Petitioner    that there should    be a declaration in writing. The purpose of    the declaration that the post is equivalent in    status    and responsibility to    Cadre    post specified in the Schedule to the Indian Admmistrative Service (;Pay) Rules is to ensure that members of the Cadre are not taken to posts beneath    their    status    and responsibility.    These measures are intended    to preserve respectability    and responsibility of the' Cadre, officers. The declaration is not one    of mere form.    It is of substance. A    declaration in writing    is desirable.    The absence    of a    declaration will not be an impediment in ascertaining the, equivalent    status    and responsibility. Similarly the    presence of a declaration may not    be conclusive if the declaration is a mere cloak.    The facts and circumstances will be looked into in order to find    out whether    there is in real substance equality in    status    and responsibility.

Fundamental Rule, 15 provides that no Government servant can be, transferred substantively to or appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on Which holds a lien or would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under rule 14. The position of the petitioner was that he Was- holding a lien in the selection grade post. It was open to the Government to transfer    him to a post or to appoint him to officiate in a post carrying pay not less than what he was entitled to in the selection grade of Rs.    1800-2000. However, the petitioner    was appointed to    the post of Deputy    Chairman, Planning Commission on 6 April, 1971 carrying a salary of Rs. 3,500 per month. The petitioner went on leave from 13 April, '1 971 to    5 June 1972. On 6 June, 1972 when the petitioner returned from leave he was again posted as Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission. The post carried a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month which is the same as that of    the Chief Secretary. The petitioner made a representation on 17 June 1972 that the post of Deputy Chairman in the rank of Chief Secretary could not continue for a period of more than one year since April. 1971. The Government on 26 June, 1972 sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of    Officer on Special Duty. On 27 June, 1972 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Officer on Special Duty.    The post of Officer on Special Duty also carried the same salary as that of    the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the) petitioner who was in    the selection grade could be transferred to any of these    two posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission or Officer on Special    Duty which were posts not lower in    status    and responsibility    to the Cadre posts in Schedule III of    the Indian    Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 and Which carried the same salary as that of the Chief Secretary. The posts of the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission    and the Officer on Special Duty were created for cadre officers to discharge duties and responsibilities of a high order,. These posts were, not created all of a sudden with    any oblique    purpose. The    Planning Commission bad been in contemplation for some time. Similarly, the post of Officer on Special Duty was    created after,consideration    and evaluation of serious problems of State Revenue. Each    one of the posts carriedspecific    functions    any responsibilities. Comparisons between ,    duties    and responsibilities of posts at the apex ,of different departments are not always possible. The status of the 3 62 post would also depend on the incumbent, because a brilliant officer    can so augment the opportunities of public service in that post    that others may covet it. The    posts    were created    under    the inherent executive powers of the State Government. These posts were not additions to posts specified in the Cadre Schedule of the Indian Administrative Service    (Cadre) Rules, 1954. These were posts outside    the cadre.

On an    objective consideration we find that the two posts were created for discharging functions requiring very    high calibre and specialized experience and must be counted as no less responsible than the topmost cadre posts. Finding suitable officers for such specialized jobs is always a difficult problem for the administration. The Cadres do not always    overflow with superabundance of    specialized experience. The choice, therefore, becomes limited.    The Administration has also to take into account the willingness or otherwise of an officer to take up a new job which    may not invest him with wide executive powers which he wields, while holding even less important posts. The choice in    the present    case fell on the petitioner when the post of    the Deputy    Chairman was created and then again when the    post Special Officer was created. He was given the pay scale of the Chief Secretary, because that was the scale of pay he was drawing when he was appointed to these posts. The    fact that on his refusal to join the posts, some body else    was appointed on Rs. 3000/- does not devalue the job. The    job remains    the. same., The question for the administration is to choose the man for the job, and it is only to be expected that whosoever is chosen will take with him his pay unless Government thinks, of paying him more.    When the petitioner was posted to the new posts he was permitted to draw    his salary    as the Chief Secretary and when Rajaram the First Member    of the Board of Revenue was appointed, he took    with him his salary as the First Member. When the petitioner was to occupy the post of Deputy.    Chairman or Special Officer the post was graded to give him his old scale.of pay    and when Rajaram was appointed to these posts, he was given    his old scale as First Member. That the posts of Chief, Secre- tary. and First Member were interchangeable,    though    the former    got a higher salary, was recognized by the State Government and also endorsed by the Central Government    long back in January, 1970.    There was, therefore no upgrading or downgrading of the post.

The petitioner had worked as Deputy Commissioner    of Commercial Taxes and subsequently    as Secretary    to Government, Revenue Department dealing.with commercial Taxes also. The petitioner was also Commissioner, Both of Revenue in charge of    commercial taxes. In    view of the wide experience of    the. petitioner in the field of commercial taxes the Government decided to ,post him as    Officer on Special    Duty.    This was neither unjust nor    unfair    nor malafide. There was no reduction in rank. The petitioner's status as well as pay was in conformity with the Rules. The, petitioner could not claim that till retirement he must continue to act in the post of the Chief Secretary.    The orders    of transfer were passed in    the administrative exigencies.

The members    of Indian Administrative Service    and particularly those who are in the high posts are described as the steel framework of the Administration.    The smooth and sound administration of the country depends in the sense of security and stability of the officers. These officers should not be made to feel that their position or posts    are precarious with the change of Government. Their service must be completely free from the fear or threat of arbitrary act of    the author,. ties. Similarly, the members of    the Service    should    keep themselves isolated from    turmoils of political parties. It is this sense of disinterestedness and detached devotion to duty which has to be recognised and rewarded.

The posts of    Deputy    Chairman, Planning Commission    and Officer    on Special    Duty are equal in status    and responsibility.    The services of cadre officers are utilised in different posts of equal status    and responsibility because    of. exigencies of administration and employing    the best available    talent in the suitable post. There is no hostile discrimination in transfer from one post to another when the posts are of equal status and responsibility. The petitioner    alleged that the creation of the posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty as well as the appointment of the petitioner to    the posts was malafide.    Broadly    stated, the petitioner's allegations were that the Chief Minister acted malafide in removing the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary The petitioner alleged that in the discharge of his duty lie was fearless and he suggested action against persons who    were friendly to the Chief Minister.    It is- said that the Chief Minister therefore wreaked his vengeance on the petitioner. One of the instances alleged by the petitioner    which    gave rise to the anger of the Chief Minister    relates    to irregularities    in the, accounts of Tanjavur    Cooperative Marketing Federation, V. S. Thiagaraja Mudaliar was the head of th e Federation. Mudaliar was a powerful and influential person.    He was a close associate of the Chief Minister. The petitioner put up a note to the Chief Minister that the case should be handed over to the police and    the persons responsible should be hauled up. The    petitioner alleged that the Minister for Co-operation called the petitioner and asked him to modify the note.    The modification suggested was to leave out any reference to Mudaliar and to omit    the suggestion for handing over the matter to the police.' Another    allegation concerning Mudaliar is that he    was flouting orders of the Government and health authorities and allowing effluents from the distillery at Tirucharapalli without proper treatment into the river and thereby causing hazards. The petitioner wrote a note asking for deterrent action    and launching prosecution against Mudaliar.    The petitioner alleged that the Chief Minister expressed    his annoyance.

The Minister for Co-operation denied that he asked    the petitioner to modify any note.    The Chief Minister denied that he ever asked for any modification in the    note.    The Chief Minister further alleges in the affidavit that there is no note written by the petitioner suggesting the launching    of prosecution against Mudaliar. Both    the Chief Minister and the Minister for Co-operation state in their affidavits that action has been taken and is being pursued    against all the persons concerned relating to    the affairs of the Federation. The petitioners' suggestion    was accepted. There is no occasion for vindictiveness. The petitioner's allegation    that the Chief Minister expressed annoyance at the    petitioner's note against Mudaliar for causing hazards by discharge of effluent from the distillery    is belied by    the action taken by    the Government. The petitioner in his note suggested a joint inspection and satisfactory arrangement for treatment of the effluent in accordance with the recommendation of the Water and Sewage Advisory Committee.    The petitioner's proposal was accepted. The petitioner    also    recommended implementation of a plant scheme, on pain of cancellation of licence. Industrial    alcohol    is manufactured in    the distillery. This product is required by the cordite factory of the Defence Department, and for pharmaceutical, medicinal and industrial products. The petitioner's recommendation to close    the distillery would    not only have created unemployment of a large section but also loss of important products. The    way the affairs of the distillery    were handled    according to the suggestion and recommendation of the petitioner does not disclose any evidence of malafide on the part of the Government.

The third instance of malafide alleged by the petitioner was that the Chief Minister did not like the suggestion of    the petitioner that Vaitialingam, the Private Secretary to    the Chief Minister should be transferred. The Chief Minister is also alleged to have said that the Chief Secretary should be transferred but not the Private Secretary.    The Chief Minister denied that he ever made any statement that    the Chief Secretary should be transferred.

It is also alleged that the Chief Minister wanted to prefer Vaithialingam in the preparation of the seniority list of the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioner alleged that he declined to oblige. Therefore, it is said that    the petitioner suffered by the malafides of the Chief Minister. There were disputes between direct recruits and' promotees in regard to fixation of seniority. The Chief Minister on the advice of the petitioner passed an order on 22nd Dec., 1969 that the Government could finace the seniority    list after considering the representations of the members. The "petitioner thereafter    submitted' a    file to the Chief Minister that    direct recruit Assistant Engineers of    the Public    Works Department also made requests for revision of seniority as between them and the promotee Engineers.    The Chief Minister under these circumstances Cancelled his order dated 22 December, 1969. Subsequent to the cancellation of the order direct recruit Deputy Collectors    filed    writ petitions in the High Court claiming revision of seniority on the basis of Government order dated 22nd December, 1969. Those petitions are pending disposal in the High Court of Madras.

The petitioner also alleges, that the Chief Minister refused to allow Deputy Collectors in the select list to act in    the Indian Administrative Service posts and many retired at    the age of 55 without acting as 1,A.S, Officers. The petitioner alleges that the Chief Minister thought    that Vaithialingam would thereby gain seniority in the inter se seniority list of Deputy    Collectors because, the age of superannuation of I.A.S. Officers is 58.    The respondents in    their    affidavits stated that the I.A.S Selection Committee could not meet for the years 1968,    1969 and 1970 for various reasons.    The, petitioner in a    note suggested that the inclusion of name in the Select List    did not confer any right of promotion.    The Chief Minister agreed with the petitioner.

These facts in relation to Vaithialingam indicate that    the petitioner was    not only a,party to all the decisions    but also he was responsible for the decisions taken by    the Government. There is no ground whatever for attributing bad faith or improper motive to the Government    against    the petitioner.

The petitioner alleged other instances which gave rise to the wrath of the Chief Minister against the petitioner. There was land acquisition at Manali for Madras Refineries. Large compensation was paid to the owner Ramkrishnan.    The petitioner caused the suspension of the District Revenue Officer and other Officers for suppressing the note that the Law Department had strongly opposed the proposal to award large    compensation.    The affidavit    evidence of    the respondents is    that the awards were passed by the    land acquisition authorities. The Law Department was of the view that land acquisition officers. did not Department advised disciplinary action    against    the officers.    The    Law Department recommended that the awards should be get aside. The Chief Minister, the Minister of Law both directed    that suitable action should be taken. The file was sent to    the petitioner for    further action. The petitioner asked    for suspension of    the Officers. The Government approved    the suspension because of the clear instructions of    the Government. Disciplinary proceedings are pending against these officers. It is obvious that the    petitioner's allegations of    malafide against the    Chief Minister    are totally repelled by the correct facts.

The petitioner alleged that the' Chief    Minister expressed the view that the Government could not tolerate the Chief Secretary who (Wed to oppose the proposal relating to    Anna Samadhi. it is follows.    The D.M. K. Party decided to erect a Samadhi called Anna Samadhi.    The Chief Minister wanted to appoint    a committee for management and maintenance of    the Samadhi. The Chief Minister wanted to issue an Ordinance' in that behalf.    The petitioner opposed the promulgation of the Ordinance.    The idea of the Ordinance was dropped.    'it is said that thereafter a private trust was    created    for administering the Samadhi. The trustees requested    the Government to    hand over the Samadhi to the    trust.    The petitioner opposed the posal on the ground that the portion of the land belonged to' the Municipal Corporation and    the land together with the Samadhi cost the Government and    the Corporation Rs. 40 lakhs. The petitioner's allegations    are all baseless.    The Public Works Department examined    the proposal to hand over the Samadhi to the private trust. file was marked to the Chief Minister.    The petitioner merely noted "Chief Minister may decide". The petitioner did    not oppose    the proposal.    This fact also    indicates that    the Chief    Minister did not bear any grudge against    the petitioner.

The petitioner alleges that an extra-ordinary-procedure    was followed 'a connection with the tender for the Veeranam Water.    Supply Scheme to the city    of Madras.    One Satyanarayana submitted the tender. The amount involved was Rs. 20 crores.    The Government agreed to pay an advance of Rs. 90 lakhs as loan to the contractor for buying machinery. The petitioner did not approve the proposal. The petitioner said that a considerable. time would be required    to scrutinies the    tender    for such a large amount.    The petitioner returned the file without scrutiny because    the Minister for Works wanted it. This    annoyed the Chief Minister. On the other hand Government alleges that eight firms submitted tenders for the Veeranam project.    The tender of Satyanarayana Brothers was the lowest. They were, a local company with wide- experience in civil works    and defence    works.    The Chief Secretary received the Me on 27 April 1970. Orders were to be issued urgently. The    file was obtained by the Additional Chief    Secretary from    the Chief Secretary's office. It was then ordered by    the Minister for Works after discussion with the Chief Minister that the lowest tender of Satyanarayana might be accepted. Orders    were issued on 7 May 1970 accepting the tender of Satyanarayana Brothers.    The petitioner's alleged note    that he wanted time to scrutinise the file is not found in    the file.    An expert team recommended the acceptance of    the. tender of Satyanarayana Brothers. It thus appears that    the petitioner saw the file on 1 1 May 1970 after the tender had been accepted on 7 May 1970. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the procedure which was adopted. When    the matter came for final orders on 13 July 1970 the petitioner did not record any objection. This is wet another instance which establishes that the petitioner made    reckless allegations imputing mala fides to the Chief Minister. The other allegation of the petitioner concerns the Cooum River Project.    The allegation is that the petitioner pressed    for an investigation of the Cooum River Project. The Chief Minister issued orders for an enquiry. Later on the Chief Minister cancelled the order.    The Chief Minister directed the Director of Vigilance to    look into certain rumours    about    malpractices in the execution of the Cooum Improvement Scheme. The Director of Vigilance informed    the petitioner and requested him to accord sanction to enable the Director to embark upon such an enquiry. The relevant section    put up before the petitioner a draft letter authorising.the    Director to embark on an enquiry. It is discovered that no action was taken by the petitioner.    The letter    of the Director dated 25 February 1970 addressed to the petitioner    indicates that the Director    asked    for authorisation to make an enquiry. The Me indicates that the petitioner on 26 February 1970 submitted a note for Public (Secret    Confidential) Department for perusal.    The Public (Secret Confidential)    Department received the file on 20 September 1970. There are minutes of the Chief Minister ordering the enquiry.    The file was    put up    before    the petitioner on 21 September 1970. The file was not received back.: On 31 July 1971. the Chief 3 6 7 Secretary asked the petitioner to send back the file. The petitioner on 8 August, 1971 said that the file was    not with him These are indeed strange things. it is baseless to allege mala fides against the Chief Minister. The brunt of the petitioner's allegations against the Chief Minister centres on the mid-term Doll in the month of February, 1971.    The petitioner's allegations are these. In or about the end of January, 1971, the D.M.K. Party of which Ramaswami Naicker is the leader took out an anti-religious procession at Salem. It is alleged that the procession hurt the feelings of devout Hindus. One Ramaswami, popularly known as "Cho" who is the Editor of    a magazine called "Tughlak" took photographs of the procession.    The D.M.K. Party obtained information that Cho was likely    to publish the photographs. 'The D.M.K. Party thought that in view of the impending elections the publication of the    photographs would    affect    their prospects at the election.    The petitioner received a trunk call from the Law Minister    who asked him to take action to prohibit    publication of    the photographs. The petitioner said that the Government had no power to prevent the publication.

The Chief Minister shouted on the telephone that the Deputy Superintendent    of Police should be suspended    and action should    be taken against the    magazine. The petitioner discussed the matter with the Inspector General of Police who said that it would be, most unfair to suspend the Deputy Superintendent    of Police, Salem. The petitioner suggested that the matter might be dropped.    The Chief Minister thereupon asked the Inspector General of Police to suspend the Circle Inspector of Police at Salem. The. Inspector General    of Police suspended    the Circle Inspector    and registered a case against him. When    the Chief Minister returned from his camp, he took the petitioner to task for registering a case against Naicker.

The Chief Minister in his affidavit states that he told    the petitioner that action should be taken against the persons who had broken ;the    law. He denies    that he took    the petitioner to task for registering a case against Naicker. He denies that he shouted at the petitioner and ordered    the Inspector General of Police to suspend any police officer. The other allegations by the petitioner are these. On 28 February, 1971 the petitioner received a telephone message from the Deputy Inspector General of Police about various clashes involving looting, killing, burning of houses in the village. in Tireunelveli District on the previous night. The Inspector General of Police informed the petitioner that the Minister of Co-operation was at the back of the clashes. The District Collector was not helpful in    take action against    the Minister.    The petitioner told the Collector that it was a serious dereliction of duty. The petitioner asked the Collector to proceed immediately to the spot to take stepS to maintain law and order.    The petitioner    also asked for a full report.

At 4 p.m. on 28 February, 1971 the Governor summoned    the petitioner and    the Inspector    General of Police.    The Governor summoned them to discuss about the deteriorating law and order situation in the city and the Districts.    The Governor made special reference to the    complaints received by him    about violence    and intimidation particularly from Tirupattur (Ramnad), Shivai Kundam,    Udumalpet,    Tiruvannamalai and    Saidapet constituencies    from where, the Chief Minister and other Cabinet    Ministers were contesting the elections.    The Inspector General of Police told the Governor    that lorry loads of goondas armed with deadly weapons had    arrived in the city of Madras. The goondas numbered about 1500.    They were brought at the instance of the Chief Minister.    The Governor was annoyed and shouted "how was it    possible to transport 1500 goondas from nearly 300 miles    by lorries without the knowledge of the police. I expect the police to do their duty.    The law and order situation has deteriorated considerably through on the State. In the    Tirupattur Constituency of Ramnad District there was no semblance of law and order. I had received telegrams and    complaints. Unless    the Collectors and the Superintendent of Police do their duty there would be no free and fair Elections".    The Governor told    the petitioner "Mr.    Chief Secretary, throughout your career, you have the reputation of carrying out the duties without fear or favour and without bothering about the consequences. I am sure that I could rely    upon you to take special steps to arrest the deteriorating    law and order situation and ensure free and fair Elections.    The petitioner assured the Governor that he would    take strong action.

The Petitioner then discussed with the Inspector General of Police    about the special steps to be taken to maintain    law and order. The petitioner gave orders to the Inspector General of Police that the goondas should be arrested.    The Inspector General of Police agreed to carry out the orders. Raid was carried out in the night.

The Chief Minister sent for the petitioner and    shouted at him. "I am the Chief Minister. I am in charge of    the Police Portfolio. How dare you order the arrest of persons ill my    constituency without my prior    permission ?"    The petitioner said that he carried out his duty without favour and fear. The Chief Minister flared up and said "You    had deployed Central Police every two feet at Thiagarayanagar, Mylapore, Saidapet and other    places. I order you to withdraw immediately the Central Reserve Police".    The petitioner said that he had asked for five battalions of Central Reserve Police for maintaining law    and order situation. It    was not possible to withdraw    the Central Reserve    Police. The    Chief    Minister shouted at    the petitioner.

After the polling was over the police force posted in    the city was moved to the other polling areas. Law aid order situation deteriorated    considerably in the city. A    lady M.L,A. belonging to the Congress Party was dragged from    her car and molested. Goondas armed with sticks    and weapons were at large.    The Inspector General of- Police discussed the matter with the petitioner. The petitioner asked    them to round up all bad elements.    More than 2600 bad elements were rounded up. In the absence of the Chief Minister,    two Ministers phoned the Commissioner of Police to release    the D.M.K.    ring leaders.    The Commissioner of    Police    in accordance with the petitioner's instructions    refused to release them unless proper bail was offered. The Commissioner of Police informed the petitioner that the Chief Minister himself had phoned him.    The Inspector General of Police reported that the    D.M.K.    was pressing into service goondas.    He apprehended    trouble as some of the    Ministers were indulging in dangerous activities. The petitioner ordered the inspector General of Police    to intercept lorry-loads of goondas.    The Chief Minister- and the Minister of Law., when they came to    know about the instructions issued by the    petitioner to    the Inspector General of Police asked the petitioner to withdraw the instructions. The petitioner refused to do, so, On 4 March, 1971 a Code message was received from the    Home Ministry that the Ministry had received disturbing reports about clashes between various political groups in parts of the city. Officers. were asked to be fully vigilant    and take preventive measures. The petitioner discussed the matter with the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police. and other officers    and issued instructions. The instructions were that the people should not be allowed to collect within three furlongs of    the counting centres. Bad elements should be rounded up 24 hours before the counting began. The Collectors and    the Commissioner of Police should form , Peace Committees    and request    the political    parties not to take    out victory processions or indulge in violence. Section 41 of the    City Police Act and Section 30 of the District Police Act were to be promulgated to regulate crowds.

On 6 March, 1971 the Chief Minister rang up the petitioner and asked him to be present at the Cabinet meeting along with the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police    and the Home Secretary.    At the Cabinet meeting    the petitioner was    attacked and' abused by the Law Minister. The petitioner, the Inspector General' of Police and    the Commissioner of Police were threatened    with dire- consequences. The results were declared on 1 1 March.    The D.M.K. maintained its majority.

After the elections a meeting of all the District Collectors was: fixed for 6 April, 1971 at Madras. The Chief Secretary as the    Service Chief was responsible    for conducting    the proceedings. The Chief' Minister called a Press Conference around    12 mid    night    at which, be    announced that    the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Chairman, of the State Planning Commission and that    he would be    transferred forthwith.

It is in this background of long narration a of events at the time of' Election that the petitioner alleges that    the Government and the Chief Minister acted malafide against the petitioner    because of the stern attitude of    the petitioner against the D.M.K. Party.

The Chief Secretary of the State in his affidavit states that there is no record of any one of the matters alleged by the petitioner with regard to law and order situation    on the eve and at the time of the election save and except    the instructions issued by the petitioner on 4 March, 1971    with regard to promulgation. of section 41 of the City police Act and section 30 of the District Police Act, rounding up of bad elements and probation offenders    and prohibition of processions The order passed by the petitioner was reviewed at the State Cabinet Meeting on 6 March, 1971.    There were two modifications.    First,    the prohibition against collection of people within three furious of the counting centre    was, changed into safe distance, in place of three furlongs. The rounding up of rowdies and bad elements    and probation offenders was restricted only to "listed rowdies". The Home Ministry Code message dated 4 March,    1971 about clashes    between political groups was received but    the Government did not attach special or particular importance to the message.    The Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs sent a message on    16 March, 1971 commending the excellent arrangements made for ensuring free and fair elections.    The Government, therefore, states that law and order was    well maintained. The letter dated 16 March, 1971 was a circular letter    sent to all the Chief Secretaries and therefore    the Government states that no special credit can be claimed by the petitioner    or ascribed to the petitioner's alleged instructions.

Re: Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

There is an affidavit by the Chief Minister that no goondas were brought by him into the city and the allegation about raid on 1 March to round up the goondas is described by    the Chief Minister to be false. The Chief Minister also denies that the petitioner at any time stated that the Inspector General of Police was expecting serious clashes in Saidapet, Mylapore and Thyagaroya Nagar.    The Chief Minister denies that be asked the Commissioner of Police to    release    the D.M.K. leaders.

The Governor of Tamil Nadu in his affidavit states that    the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police met him on 28 February, 1971    at 4 p.m. at his instance to    discuss    the arrangements made or being    made for the effective maintenance of law and order. The, Governor brought to    the notice of the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police that certain allegations had    been made in    regard    to incidents of violence    and intimidation. The Inspector General    of Police told the Governor that the reports would be investigated. The    Governor denies that    he made a reference to complaints of violence or intimidation from the constituencies of Chief Minister and Cabinet Ministers.    The Governor also denies that the Inspector General of Police had informed him that 1500 goondas had been rounded up.    The Governor denies that    he ever paid    compliments to    the petitioner about his reputation or carrying out his duties without favour or fear.

The Minister of Labour in his affidavit denies that he phoned    up the Commissioner of Police.    The Minister    for Harijan    Welfare to the Government of    Tamil    Nadu denies having telephoned the Commissioner of Police to release    the arrested leaders. The Minister for Food denies that    the D.M.K. employed    goondas and he with    other    Ministers indulged in violence.    He also denies    that the Minister started    a tirade against the    petitioner, the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police. The Inspector    General of Police states that there was no deterioration in the law and order situation.    He states that out of 160 complaints received throughout the State 69 were against D.M.K. 46 against the Congress (0) and 6 against the other parties and the remaining    39 are against the Police and    other    non- political bodies. The Inspector General of Police denies that there was any organised    violence. Kuppuswamy,    the Inspector General of Prisons who held the post    of Commissioner of Police at the time of the election states that the allegations made by the petitioner about tirade against    the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police are baseless. The petitioner made allegations of malafides to suggest that the petitioner was an honest officer and the Chief Minister and the, other Ministers did not want such an honest officer and therefore    they got rid of him. The most significant feature    in the allegations of malafides is that when on 7 April,    1971 the petitioner was appointed to act as Deputy Chairman, Planning and he went on leave he did not at    any stage state anywhere that the order was made malafide.    The first letter where the petitioner alleged malafides is dated 7 June, 1972.    The allegations of    malafides are    not contemporaneous    but after thoughts at a distance of    one year.    That was when the petitioner returned    from leave after one year and he was appointed to the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission. Even 'in that letter    the only allegation about malafide is that the petitioner    took strong steps about maintenance of law and order at the    time of the    elections in 1971 against the views of the Chief Minister and the Ministers. It, therefore, follows    that until the petition was filed in the month of July, 1972    the respondents were not    aware of various allegations    of malafide made in the petition. Therefore, when the impugned order was made on 26/27 June, 1972 it is manifest that    the Government did not make the order out of any improper motive or any indecent haste or out of any ingenious inspiration to get rid of the petitioner. Another noticeable    feature in the allegations of malafides is that    the petitioner    all throughout describes himself as a person who acted without any fear or favour and enjoyed the reputation of being a strict    and honest officer, and, therefore, the Government contrived to remove the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. Honest and fearless cadre officers are    not unknown and rare as the petitioner suggests. Nor are intre- pid officers in cadre posts thrown out of office because of expression of views about law and order situation. In    the petition the petitioner has ascribed to the Chief Minister, the Governor and a few other Ministers    certain statements having    been made by them. The statements are quoted to be words of mouth of the Chief Minister or the Governor or    the Ministers. The petitioner has nowhere made contemporaneous entry or record of such utterances. It is difficult to believe    that the petitioner would remember identical words in long sequence and set them out with exactitude in    the petition. These allegations are made in the petition    for the purpose of giving semblance of truth and tending colour to chronicle.

The affidavit evidence indicates that the'petitioner carried out normal duties and exercised care and caution at the time of the election. That is expected of all officers. It is also expected    that officers will maintain a balanced    and firm hand in regard to law and order situation as well as administration.    Civil servants are expected to advise Ministers in the context of files and rules. The Government and Ministers are also expected to maintain a balanced    and impersonal attitude in regard to advice given by civil servants. In    the present ,case, it appears that    the petitioner gave advice in course of duty. The    Government practically in all cases accepted the advice of the peti- tioner.    There does not appear any instance of acrimony or disagreement between the Government and the    petitioner. There are no records to suggest that the petitioner advised one way and the Government acted in an opposite manner. The events alleged at the time of the elections are in aid of the petitioner's contention that his dealing of the    law and order situation was so firm that the Chief Minister    and other members of his party became alienated. The petitioner suggested that    the Chief Minister and the members of    his party    were responsible for    introducing violence and intimidation.    The further suggestion of the petitioner is that the petitioner exposed the activities of    the D.M.K. Party.    Complaints against the D.M.K. Party were    like complaints against other political parties. The affidavit evidence, indicates that the law and order situation    was kept under normal'control. All the officers of the State including the police service discharged, their duty in    the best interest    of administration 'as also    'in public interest. The petitioner did not achieve anything extraordinary.    As the Chief Secretary it was the duty of the petitioner    to see that situation nowhere went out of control. The Chief Minister and the members of his party cannot    be said on the affidavit evidence to have committed acts of violence or intimidation. The, entire affidavit evidence establishes beyond any measure of doubt that    the petitioner's allegations imputing malafides    against    the Chief Minister are baseless. The petitioner's    allegations were in aid of suggesting vindictiveness and vengeance on part of the Chief 'Minister Facts' and circumstances repel any such insinuation and innuendo.

For these reasons the contentions of the petitioner. fail. The. petition is dismissed. Each party will pay and    bear its own costs.

JUDGMENT BHAGWATI, J. We are in agreement with the final conclusion reached    in the judgment delivered by    the learned Chief Justice, but our approach and reasoning are a little different and    we are, therefore, delivering separate judgment expressing our views on the    various questions. arising in the petition, The petitioner    is a member of    the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu. On 2nd August', 1968, the petitioner was confirmed in the selection grade of the, Indian Administrative Service with effect from    22nd May, 1961. The petitioner was successively posted to act as Fifth Member,    Board of Revenue, Fourth Member, Board of Revenue,Third Member, Board of Revenue, and Second Member, Board of Revenue on 25th February, 1964 5th August, 1965, 30th March. 1966 and 5th April, 1969.    On 11th, July,    1909 the State of Tamil Nadu passed an order sanctioning    the creation of a temporary post of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government for a period of one year and directed that the posts of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and First ,Member of the Board of Revenue    should    be deemed to be in the    same category    and should    be interchangeable selection posts, and by the    same order    promoted and Posted the petitioner    to act as Additional Chief Secretary to Government in the newly created    post Now, according.to Sh., 111A of    the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 954 the posts-,of, Chief Secretary to Government anti First Member, Board of Revenue carried    respectively pay of,Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,750/-. But since, the State Government had by the order dated 11 th July, 1969 directed that the posts of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and First Member,    Board of Revenue should be in the    same category and interchangeable it was necessary-that there should    be same pay for all the three posts and the State Government, therefore, by a letter dated 7th August,    1969 requested the Central Government to amend Sch.    IIIA of    the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, '1954, so    that all the three posts could- be of the game rank carrying    the same pay, namely, Rs. 3,000/. The Central Government by    its letter    in reply dated 26th September, 1969 pointed out    to' the State Government that the status of Chief Secretary to Government as the head of the Secretariat organisation in the State should remain unquestioned and it should not be allowed    to be    diluted by the creation of the post of Additional Chief Secretary carrying the same    status    and emoluments as    the Chief Secretary and suggested that    the State Government may consider adding the post of Additional Secretary to the cadre temporarily for one year in the    pay of Rs. 2,750/- or in smaller scale, but not in the scale of Rs. 3,000/- as desired by the State Government. So far as the request of the State Government in regard to the post of First Member of the Board of Revenue was concerned'.    the Central    Government agreed that there should be one    non- Secretariat posting the State Cadre    carrying, the    same salary as that of the. Chief Secretary and stated that they were taking steps to provide that tic First Member,, Board of Revenue should. carry the same pay as possible to    the Chief Secretary. The Central Government accordingly issued a notification dated 14th January, 1970 in persuance of r. 11 of the Indian' Administrative Service' (Pay) Rules,    1954 amending Schedule III with effect from 17th December, 1969 so as    to provide that the pay of First Member, Board of Revenue shall be Rs. 3,000, that is the same as that of    the Chief    Secretary. The post of First Member, Board of Revenue was, thus equated to that of'the Chief Secretary in rank and status, though the    post of Additional Chief Secretary was not.

In the    meantime, on 13th November,1969, the    then Chief Secretary Ramakrishnan, who was a member of the Indian Civil Service, was retiring on completion of 35 years service, and the question, therefore, arose as to who should be appointed in his place. The file in this connection was placed before, the Chief Minister, who is the second respondent before    us, and a list of eleven senior-most members of the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Administrative Service was submitted to him    for his consideration on 30th October,    1969.    The second    respondent made an elaborate note on the Me on    12th November , 1969 pointing out that    the post of Chief Secretary is a selection post and in making selection merit should be considered and not seniority alone and the person best fitted to discharge the onerous duties of the    post should be selected. The second respondent then proceeded to consider the merits of the' eleven officers whose names    had been placed before him and selected the petitioner for    the post stating that "    among the present set of senior officers-E.P. Royappa is the best suited for the post"    and "he may, therefore, be promoted as Chief Secretary".    This note was approved by the Governor on, the same day, namely, 12th November,    1969.    On the next day, that is,    13th November, 1969 the draft order in regard to the appointment of the petitioner was prepared and it was approved by    the second respondent. The draft order stated inter- alia    that the petitioner "is promoted and posted as Chief Secretary vice Thiru Ramakrishnan, I.C.S. retiring from service    with effect from the afternoon of 13th November, 1969" The final order in the name of the Governor duly authenticated by    the Chief Secretary was issued on the same day    but it    was differently worded in one material respect. Paragraph 5 of that order provided that the petitioner "is promoted    and posted    to act as Chief Secretary to Government    vice Thiru Ramakrishnan, I.C.S. who has been granted refused leave with effect    from 14th November 1969." The reference here was to the fact that Ramakrishnan has been granted refused leave for four months from 14th November, 1969 under    Fundamental Rule 86, cl. (a). The petitioner was accordingly promoted as Chief Secretary. Whether such promotion was byway of substantive appointment or in an officiating capacity is a matter    which we would have to decide when we deal with    the arguments of the parties.

On 1st April, 1970, the Government of India proposed that in view of the fact that the responsibilities of Chief Secretary to State Government had multiplied    and become complex    to such an extent that they would no longer be regarded as less onerous than those of Secretary to the Government of India, the post of Chief' Secretary to State Government should be equated to the post of Secretary to the Government of    India in respect of Pay and    invited    the comments of various State Governments on this proposal.    The State of Tamil Nadu conveyed its assent to the proposal but suggested that since the posts of Chief Secretary and First Member,    Board of Revenue in the State were equal in status and interchangeable, both these posts should be upgraded to that-of    Secretary to    the Government of India.    The Government of    India did not accede to the request of    the State of Tamil Nadu in so far as the post of First Member, Board of Revenue was concerned,. but in regard to the    post of Chief Secretary, amended    Sch. III to    the Indian Administrative    Service (Pay) Rides, 1954 by a    notification dated 31st August, 1970 raising the pay of Chief Secretary from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month so as to bring him on par with Secretary to the Government of India.: The    rank and status of the post of Chief Secretary was thus enhanced and that post was raised above every other cadre post in the State including the post of First Member, Board of Revenue. The general elections    to the    Parliament and the State Legislature were held in Tamil Nadu in the first week of March 1971. The results of the poll were declared on    11th March,    1971 and the DMK party under the leadership of    the second    respondent retained its majority in    the State Legislature and formed the new Government with    the second respondent as    the Chief Minister.    According to    the petitioner, there were several matters in which he had    the misfortune to incur the displeasure and wrath of the second respondent during the period prior to the elections as    also at the time of the elections whilst acting in discharge( of his duties as- Chief Secretary, and the second    respondent, therefore, on being returned to power, decided to remove him from the post of Chief Secretary. With that end in view the second respondent announced at a Press Conference held by him at mid-night on 6th April, 1971 that the petitioner    was transferred, as Deputy Chairman of    the State Planning Commission. There was State Planning Commission    in existence on that date though it appears that the proposal to set it up had been under consideration of the Government for Some time. The petitioner was also not given    any inkling    of the proposed appointment and he came to learn about it for the first time on reading the newspapers in the morning    of 7th April 1971. The formal order in this. connection was issued by the State Government on 7th April, 1971 and by this order the    State    Government accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman in the State Planning Commission in the grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year with    effect    from the date of appointment and appointed the petitioner to that post providing that be-shall be entitled to the same    rank and emoluments as- admissible to the post of Chief Secretary' The petitioner obviously felt that he was being denig rated and he, therefore, did not join this post and went on leave    from 18th April, 1971    and the leave    was renewed by him from time to me upto 5th June, 1972 The State planning Commission was in the meantime constituted on    25th May, 1971 and since the petitioner was on leave, an order dated 19th August,' 1971 was issued by the State Government- directing, in modification of the earlier adder dated    7th April,    1971, that the post of Deputy Chairman should be deemed to have been sanctioned for a period of one Year from 13th April, 1971 and that Raja Ram, who was First Member, Board of Revenue, should be placed in charge of that    post until further orders.    The post of Deputy Chairman having been created for a period of one Year only, came to an    end on 13th April, 1972 and it was not thereafter continued' until 6th June, 1972 when it was again revived on return of the petitioner from leave. The State Government passed an order dated 6th

-L522SCI/64 June, 1972 sanctioning once    again the creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman on a pay of Rs. 3,500/- per month for    a period of one year    and appointing,the, petitioner to that post on return leave. Against this order the petitioner made    a representation to the second respondent on    7th June, 1972 stating    that,    without    the approval of the Central Government, 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 r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. How far this    contention was valid is a matter we shall presently examine and it need not detain us. The next event that happened was-whether as a sequel to the representation of the    petitioner or not, we do not know-that the State Government issued an order dated 26th June, 1972 sanctioning the creation of a temporary post of Officer on Special    Duty "of the rank of Member, Board of Revenue' for a period of me year for streamlining    and rationalising the structure of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and    similar enactments relating to commercial taxes and rules. On the, next    day, i.e., 27th June, 1972 another order was issued by the State Government modifying the earlier order to the    effect    that the temporary post of officer on Special Duty shall be    "in the_ grade of Chief Secretary to Government" and appointing the petitioner to this post. The petitioner did not    join this post too and proceeded on long leave which continues till to-day. We enquired of the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu as to what arrangement had been made to fill the post of    Officer on Special    Duty in the absence of the petitioner who had    gone on leave and in answer to our inquiry, we were informed by him that a Member of the Board of Revenue was    discharging the functions    of this post in addition to    his normal functions. It may be pointed out here that after the peti- tioner was transferred from the post of Deputy Chairman    and appointed Officer on Special Duty, an order dated 29th June, 1972 was passed by the State Government abolishing the    post of Deputy Chairman sanctioned under the earlier order dated 6th June, 1972, sanctioning the creation of a new post of Deputy    Chairman "in the grade of First Member, Board of Revenue" on a pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month and appointing Raja Ram, First Member, Board of Revenue to that post    "in addition to Ms appointment as First Member, Board of Revenue". One other fact may also be, noticed-and that is a little important that on transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. one Sabanayagam, who was admittedly junior    to the petitioner, was promoted as Chief Secretary and we    ate told that he has been confirmed in    that post. The petitioner was    obviously hurt    by these rather ,disingenuous moves adopted by the State Government at    the instance of the second respondent to remove him    from the post of Chief Secretary and be, therefore, filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging    the validity of his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary, first to the    post of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and then to the post of Officer on Special Duty, on the following grounds. namely. (1) it was contrary to the proviso    to r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (cadre)    Rules.- 1954 :and r. 9, sub-r. (1) of    the Indian Administrative    Service    (Pav)    Rules,    1954; (2) it    was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution as 3 7 7 the posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission    and Officer on Special Duty were inferior 'in rank and status to that of the Chief Secretary; and (3) it was made in    mala fide exercise    of power, not on account of exigencies of administration    or public service, but because    the second respondent was    annoyed with the petitioner on    account of various incidents referred to in the petition and wanted him out of    the way. We shall elaborate these grounds as we proceed to discuss them.

But before we examine these grounds we must first determine what was the nature of the appointment when the petitioner was promoted as Chief Secretary. Was he, promoted in a substantive capacity or in an officiating capacity ?    The contention of    the petitioner was that he was appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary and for    this purpose he relied on the draft order approved by the second respondent as    well as the Governor which did not use    any words suggesting that    his Promotion    was in an acting capacity and promoted and posted him    as Chief Secretary without any qualifying or limitative words. The petitioner- of-course could not dispute that the words used in    the authenticated order were '.'promoted and posted to act as Chief Secretary", but his argument was, firstly, that    the words "to act" qualified only "posted" and not "promote&' and in    this context they meant nothing more than    this namely,    that the petitioner was posted to function or    work as Chief Secretary and not that he was promoted in an acting capacity, and secondly that even if the words "to act"    had the effect of    making    promoted an acting on the,    the authenticated order did not    correctly embody the    real decision of the State Government which was to be found in the draft order and the draft order must, therefore, prevail over the authenticated order.    The respondents sought to repel this contention by a two-fold argument.    The first argument was based on the terms of the authenticated order and it    was said that that    was the final    order    duly authenticated by the then Chief Secretary and it was    not open to the petitioner to go behind that order and refer to the draft order for purpose ;of varying its terms.    The authenticated order, contended the respondents, clearly showed that the promotion and posting of 'the petitioner as Chief Secretary was in an officiating capacity. The other argument urged in the alternative    was that though Ramakrishnan retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the    afternoon of 13th November, 1969, he    was granted refused leave for a period of four months after the date of his retirement under Fundamental Rule 86, cl. (a) and    his service was, therefore, extended and he continued to retain his lien on the post of Chief Secretary until the expiration of such period of four months, i.e. up to 14th March,    1970 and the petitioner could not, therefore, possibly    be appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary    till that time. We think, ion    a consideration of these arguments, that the contention of the petitioner that he was promoted as Chief Secretary in a substantive capacity.is not well founded.

The authenticated order provided in terms clear and explicit that the petitioner was promoted and posted to act as Chief Secretary. The, words "to act", according to plain grammar and language,    governed pot    only "posted"    but    also "promoted". The petitioner was both 3 78 promoted and posted" as one single composite    event,    "to, act" as Chief Secretary and that clearly meant that    the promotion was in an acting capacity. But the    argument of the petitioner was that the words "to act" were not to be found in the    drift order which recorded the original decision of the State Government and they were introduced in the authenticated order by mistake and should therefore be ignored, or in other words, the authenticated order should be read without the words "to act" so as to be in conformity with the draft order. The respondents resisted this attempt to go behind the authenticated order and contended that    the authenticated order was the final order and it was not, open to the petitioner to say that it did not correctly reflect the order as made by the State Government. We do not think this contention of the respondents is sound. It is now well settled    law that when an order is authenticated, the    only challenge that is excluded by the authentication is that it is not an order made by the Governor. The validity of    such an order can be questioned on other grounds.    [Vide    King Emperor    v. Shivnath Banerjee(1) and    State of Bihar v. Sonabati(2). The authentication does not, therefore, Pre- clude the contention that the order though made by    the, Governor suffers from some    other    infirmity.    The, authenticated order is merely an expression of    the actual order which precedes it and which is made by the appropriate authority entitled to act on behalf of the State Government. As pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar    v. Sonabati(2- "the process of making an order precedes and is different from the expression of it". It should, therefore, be axiomatic that if the authenticated order does,    not correctly reflect the actual order made, or to put the    same thing differently, the actual decision taken by the State Government, it    must be open to correction.    The formal expression of the order cannot be given such sanctity    that even if found to be mistaken, it must    prevail over    the- actual order made and override it.    That would not be consonant with    reason    or principle.    It would be    an artificial rule calculated to obstruct the cause of truth and justice. Here in the present case it is the citizen who contends that    the authenticated order does not correctly reproduce the    actual order made by the State    Government. But there may conceivably be cases where the Government    may also find that there is a mistake in the authenticated order and it requires to be rectified. Take for example a    case where the actual decision taken by the State Government is that a    person    should be appointed    to a post in    an officiating capacity but by mistake the. appointment is described as substantive appointment in the authenticated order.'    Can it be suggested in such a case that    the Government cannot rectify the mistake by amending    the authenticated order so as to bring it in accord with    the real decision    ? We have, therefore, no doubt that it    was competent to the petitioner to contend, by reference to    the draft order which contained the original decision of    the State Government, that the authenticated order did    not correctly reflect such decision and suffered from an error. But the question is whether such contention can succeed. Now, if we look at the draft order it is clear that it merely    uses the words "promoted and posted as Chief Secretary". It is silent as to (1) 72 I.A.    241.    (2) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 746 3 79 the nature of the promotion. It does not say    whether    the promotion is by way of substantive appointment or in an officiating capacity. It could be either, consistently with the words used. It is the authenticated order    which    says for the first time clearly and definitely by using the words "to act" that the promotion is in an officiating capacity. There is thus no inconsistency between the draft order and the authenticated order from which any error can be spelt out in the authenticated order.    The authenticated order in so far    as it uses the words "to act", does no more    than speak on a matter on which the draft order was silent.    It appears    that before issuing the authenticated order    the appropriate authority applied its mind to the question as to whether the promotion should be in a substantive capacity or in an officiating capacity and since Ramakrishnan was going on refused leave for four months from 14th November,    1969 and was accordingly,    as we shall presently    point out, entitled to retain his lien on the post of Chief Secretary till that date, decided that the promotion should be an officiating one as indeed it could not be otherwise,    and that is why the authenticated order was issued with    the addition of the words "to act" after the    expression "promoted and    Posted". There is of-course    no positive evidence to this effect, but it would appear to be a reasonable inference to make in view of the substitution of the words "retiring from service with effect from    the afternoon of 13th November, 1969" in the authenticated order.    It is, therefore, clear that the authenticated order correctly reflected the final decision of    the State Government and under it the promotion of the petitioner    was in an acting or officiating capacity.

The alternative argument of the respondents must also    lead us to    the same conclusion. This argument has    been dealt with in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice and we do not think we can usefully add anything to what has    been stated there by the learned Chief Justice We entirely agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Chief Justice    on this point and hold that    since    Ramakrishnan proceeded on refused leave for a period of four months    from the date of his superannuation he continued to    retain    his lien on the post of Chief Secretary until 14th March, 1970 during    the period of refused leave granted to him, and    the promotion of the petitioner under the order    dated    13th November, 1969 could not therefore be otherwise than in an officiating capacity.    The post of Chief Secretary became vacant    on 14th March, 1970 but at no time thereafter the petitioner was    confirmed as Chief Secretary and he had, therefore, no right to hold the post of Chief Secretary At the date when he was transferred as Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission. But that does not mean that he was not entitled to be considered for confirmation, and since he was not confirmed,, but Subanayagam, who was junior to him, was, promoted and confirmed, the question must inevitably arise whether what was done was in mala fide exercise of power or in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We now turn to the first ground of challenge which alleges contravention of the second proviso to r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and r. 9, sub-s. (1) of the Indian Admi-

nistrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. So far as the second proviso    to r. 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 is concerned, we do not think it has any application. That proviso merely confers limited'authority on the State Government to make temporary addition to    the cadre    for a    period    not exceeding    the limit therein specified. The strength and composition of the cadre can be determined only by the Central Government under r. 4(1)    and the Central Government alone can review it trienially or at any other intermediate time under r. 4(2). The State Government cannot add to the cadre a different category of post than that already existing in the cadre, nor can it make any permanent addition to the number of    posts of a particular category in the cadre, for to do so would mean, in the    first case, alteration in the composition of    the cadre, and in the second, alteration in the strength of    the cadre,    both of which would be impermissible to the State Government. But the State Government can, by virtue of    the relaxation granted by the second proviso, make temporary addition to the cadre provided the post added carries duties or resposibilities of a like, nature to a cadre post.    This would mean, as pointed out by the Government of India in its decision recorded at    4.1 at page 741    of the All India Services Manual (Second Edition) : "The exercise of    this power by the    State Government with reference    to a    post involves an' objective assessment of the nature of    the duties    and responsibilities attached    to that post    in comparison to those attached to a cadre post.    Thus posts cannot    be added temporarily to the cadre unless such posts already exist in the cadre". The State of Tamil Nadu could not, therefore, add the posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty under    the second proviso, as these posts did not exist in the cadre as constituted by    the Central Government. They were    new categories of posts created by, the State Government.    The second proviso to r. 4(2) has, therefore, no application and the challenge based on it must fail.

The petitioner is, however, on firmer ground when he bases his, challenge    under    r. 9,    sub-r.    (1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. Rule 9, in so far as material, provides as follows "(1) No    Member    of the    Service shall    be appointed    to a    post other than a    post specified    in Schedule III, unless the State Government concerned, in respect of posts under its control, or the Central Government in respect of posts under its control, as    the case may be, make a declaration that the    said post is equivalent    in status    and responsibility to a post specified in the said Schedule.

(2)The pay of a member of the Service on appointment to a post    other than a    post specified in Schedule III shall be the same as he would: have- been entitled to, had he    been appointed    in the post to which the said-post is declared equivalent.

(3)    xxx    xxx    xxx (4)Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the State Government concerned in respect of any posts.

under its control, or the Central Government in respect of any posts under its control, may for sufficient reasons    to be    recorded in writing,    where equation    is not possible, appoint any member of the, Service to any such post without making a declaration    that the said    post is equivalent in status    and responsibility to a post specified in Schedule III."

This rule is    intended to provide a    safeguard for    the protection of a member of the Indian Administrative Service. Sub-r.    (1) enacts    that no member of    the Indian Administrative    Service shall be appointed to a    post other than a post specified in Schedule III, or in other words, to a non-cadre post unless the Government makes a    declaration that such non-cadre post is "equivalent in    status    and responsibility"    to a post specified in the said Schedule, i.e..,    to a cadre post. If the State Government wants to appoint    a member of the Indian Administrative Service to a non-cadre post    created by it, it cannot do so unless it makes a declaration setting out which is the cadre post to which such non-cadre    post is    equivalent in    status    and responsibility.    The making of such a declaration is a    sine qua non of the exercise of power under sub-r. (1 ). It is not an    idle formality which can be dispensed with at    the sweet-will of the Government.    It has a purpose behind it and that is to ensure that    a member of    the Indian Administrative Service is not pushed off so a non-cadre post which is inferior in status and responsibility to    that occupied by him. So far as cadre post are concerned, their hierarchy would be known, but a non-cadre post created by the Government would be stranger in the hierarchy, and    that is why sub-r. (1) requires that before appointing a member of the Indian Administrative Service to such non-cadre post, the Government must declare which is the cadre post to which such non-cadre post    is equivalent in status    and responsibility,    so that the member of    the Indian Administrative    Service who is appointed to such non-cadre post, would know what is the status and responsibility of his post in terms of cadre posts and whether he is placed in a superior, or equal post or he is brought    down to an inferior post.    If it is the latter, he would be entitled to protect    his rights by pleading violation of Art. 311 or Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, whichever may be appli- cable.    That would provide him effective insulation against unjust or unequal or unlawful treatment at the hands of    the Government. The object of this provision clearly is to ensure    that the public services are' in the discharge of their duties, not exposed to the demoralising and depraving effects    of personal or political nepotism or victimisation or the    aries    of    the    political    machine.

Re: Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

determination of equivalence Is'therefore, made    a condition precedent before a member of the IndianAdministrative Service can be appointed to a non-cadre post undersub- r. (1).    It is a mandatory requirement which must be obeyed. The Government    must apply its mind    to the nature    and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post and determine the equivalence. There the pay attached to the non-cadre post is not material.    As pointed out by the Government of India in a decision given by it in' MHA letter No. 32/52/56-AIS(II) dated 10th July. 1956    the basic criterion for the determination of equivalence is "the nature and responsibities of duties attached to the post and not the pay attached to the post". Once the declaration of equivalence is made on a proper application of mind to    the nature    and responsibilities of the functions    and duties attached to the non-cadre post, sub-r. (2) says that the pay of the member of the Indian Administrative Service appointed to such.non-cadre post shall be the same as he    would    have been entitled to, had he been appointed in the cadre post to which such non-cadre post is declared equivalent. He is thus assured the pay of the equivalent cadre post and    his pay is    protected. Now this declaration of    equivalence, though imperative, is not conclusive, in the sense that    it can never be questioned. It would be open to A member of the Indian    Administrative    Service to contend, notwithstanding    the declaration of equivalence, that the non-cadre post    to which he is appointed is in truth    and reality    inferior in status and responsibility to    that occupied by him and his appointment to such non-cadre    post is in violation of Art. 311 or Arts. 14 and 16.    The burden of establishing this would undoubtedly be heavy and    the court would be slow to interfere with the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. The Government would ordinarily be    the best judge to evaluate and    compare    the nature,    and responsibilities to the functions    and duties attached to different posts with a view to determining whether    or not they are equivalent in status and responsi- bility    and when the Government has declared    equivalence after proper application of mind to the relevant factors, the court would be most reluctant to venture into    the uncharted and unfamiliar field of administration and examine the correctness of the declaration of equivalence made    by the Government.    But where it appears to the court that    the declaration of equivalence is made without application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties,    attached to the non-cadre post or extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the equivalence or    the nature and responsibilities of    the functions and duties of the two posts are so dissimilar that no reasonable man can possibly say that they are equivalent in status or responsibility or the declaration    of equivalence is mala fide or in colourable exercise of power or it    is a cloak for displacing a member of    the Indian Administrative    Service    from a cadre    post which he is occupying, the court can and certainly would set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to    the civil servant. The    declaration of    equivalence must, however, always be there if    a member of    the Indian Administrative    Service    is to be appointed to    a non-cadre post.    The only exception ,to this rule is to be found in sub-r. (4) and that applies where the-noncadre post is    such that it is not possible to equate it with any cadre post 1 1 Where the Government finds that the equation is    not possible, it can appoint a member of the Indian Administrative    Service    to a non-cadre post but only    for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing.    This again shows that the Government is required to apply its mind    and make an objective assessment IL, basis of relevant factors for determining whether the non-cadre post to which a member of the    Indian    Administrative    Service is sought to be appointed can    be equated to a cadre post, and if so    what cad dre. post it can be so equated. This is- the plain requirement of r. 9 sub-r. (1) and the question is whether the appointment of the petitioner to the non-cadre posts of Deputy    Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty was in compliance with this requirement. Turning first to the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission, it was made by the order dated 7th April, 1971. The Government by this order sanctioned the    creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman "in. the grade of Chief Secretary" and appointed the petitioner    to this post, stating. that he would be entitled to the same rank and emoluments as admissible, to the Chief Secretary.    Howsoever favourably to the State Government we may try to read this order, it is not possible to discern in it any trace of a declaration that the State Government found, on an objective assessment of the nature and responsibility. of the functions and duties attached to the post of Deputy Chairman, that it    was equivalent in status and responsibility to that of Chief Secretary. It is one thing to create a post of Deputy Chairman in the grade of Chief Secretary and another to determine, on an objective assessment of    the nature. and responsibilities of    the functions and duties, that the post of Deputy    Chairman is equivalent in status and responsibility to that of Chief Secretary. Here the State Government seems to have pro- ceeded on the hypothesis that it can create a non-cadre post in the rank    or grade of any cadre post    it likes, irrespective of the nature and responsibilities of    the functions and    duties attached to such non-cadre post    and that would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of r. 9,    sub-r. (1). But that, hypothesis is plainly, incorrect. The State Government cannot artifically create equivalence by    saying that a    particular non-cadre post, whatever be the nature and    respon- sibilities of    the functions and duties attached to it, shall be in the rank or grade of any cadre post it likes. The State Government    has to apply its mind and make an objective assessment of    the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties    and determine which is the cadre post to which such non-cadre post &an be    regarded as equivalent in    status    and responsibility    and then only it can make a declaration of equivalence. This exercise does not seem to have been    gone through by the State Government when it made the order dated 7th April, 1971 sanctioning the creation of the post of Deputy Chairman and appointing the petitioner to that post. This becomes abundantly cleat if we look at the subsequent orders.    As we have already Pointed out above, the post of Deputy Chairman first created came to pay end on 13th April, 1972. Thereafter there was no post of Deputy Chair dated6th June. 1972. Strangely enough this order, unlike the earlier orderdated 7th.April, 1971, did not even mention that the post of Deputy Chairman was in, the grade or rank, of Chief Secretary. it merely prescribed, the pay which shall attach to the post of Deputy Chairman.    There was admittedly no deceleration in it equating the post of Deputy Chairman to that of Chief Secretary. Then we come to the order dated 29th June, 1972. This order is most eloquent. it is abolished the    post of Deputy Chairman    created under    the order dated 6th, June, 1972 and sanctioned the creation of a fresh post of    Deputy Chairman I "in the grade of First Member,    Board    of, Revenue" on a pay, of Rs.    3,000/-    per month and appointed.Raja Ram, First Member,    Board of Revenue to that post.    Now it was not    the case of the respondents that when the post of Deputy Chairman was sancagain by this order, there was any change in the    nature and ,responsibilities of the functions    and duties    attached to the post of Deputy Chairman. These remained the same, namely, what they were when the post of Deputy    Chatirman was first created under the order (fated 7th April, 1971 and then again under the order dated    6th June, 1972. If that be so, how could the post' of Deputy Chairman be declared    to be    equivalent in    status    and responsibility    to the post of Chief Secretary at one    time and to    the post of First Member, Board of Revenue at another. The nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties remaining the same, the equivalence, which is a matter of objective assessment, could not vary from time to time.    This nearly shows that the Government did not apply its mind and objectively determine the equivalence of    the post of Deputy Chairman but gave it a rank or grade according as who was going to be appointed to it. That is in fact whit the State Government has categorically and in so many terms admitted in paragraphs 25 (b) and 28 of    its affidavit in reply : "Since Thiru M. G. Raja Ram was drawing only a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month there was no option but to, down grade the post" :-"With the recent    appointment of Thiru M. G. Raja Ram as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission the post has been equated to that of the First Member,    Board of Revenue". But this is precisely what is impermissible.    The status and responsibility of a non-cadre post for the    purpose of determining    equivalence cannot depend on who is going to occupy it. It is really the other way round. The equivalence in status    and responsibility determined on    an objective assessment of the    nature    and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post should decide which officer should occupy it. It may be pointed out that, even if the order dated 7th April, 1971 be construed most liberally in favour of the State Government which,    in our opinion, should not be done when there is a contest    between a public servant and the State Government. it did not contain a declaration of equivalence in regard to "responsibility". There can, therefore. be no    doubt    that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Chairman was in contravention of r. 9(1). But we cannot grant relief to the petitioner on this ground, because, as andmitted by him in    his letter dated 7th    June,    1972 addressed to    the second respondent, he accepted    the appointment without demur as he though that the post of Deputy Chairman "was of the, same rank and carried the    same emoluments as    tie post of Chief Secretary" and actually stated    in a chat with newsmen on 7th April, 1971 that    "he was looking forward with confidence to discharge the duties of the    Deputy    Chairman. Planning, Commission which is considered a challenging task", and    he cannot now be permitted to challenge the validity of the appointment. So far as the question of validity of the appointment to the post of Officer on Special Duty is concerned, we,think    that this appointment also suffers from the same infirmity. The order dated 26th June, 1972 first created the post of Officer    on Special Duty "of the rank of Member, Board of Revenue", but on the next day, when it was decided to appoint the petitioner to that post,    the, order dated 26th June, 1972 was modified by the order dated 27th June, 1972 and the post of Officer on Special Duty    was created    "in the grade of Chief Secretary".    These    two orders dated 26th June, 1972 and 27th June, 1972 being of the nature and in almost identical words as the order dated 7th April,_ 1471, what we have said above in regard to    the order dated 7th April, 1971 must apply equally in relation to these two orders dated 26th June, 1972 and    27th June, 1972.    It is clear, for reasons we have already discussed while dealing with the order dated 7th April, 1971, that in making these two orders dated 26th June, 1972 and 27th    June 1972, the State Government proceeded on the wrong assumption that it can create a non-cadre post in the rank or grade, of any cadre post it likes, regardless    of the    nature    and responsibilities of the functions and duties    attached to such non-cadre post. The State Government first created the post of Officer on Special Duty in the rank of Member, Board of Revenue and on the very next day, because it was. decided that the petitioner should be appointed to    that post, converted it into one in the grade of Chief Secretary.    This shows clearly that the State Government did not apply    its mind and determine on an objective appraisal of the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post, of    Officer    on Special Duty whether it    was equivalent in    status    and responsibility to the post of Member,. Board of Revenue or to the post of Chief Secretary The nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post of Officer on Special Duty could    not change    in a day and indeed it was not the case of    the respondents that they changed at any time.. If that be    so, how could the post of Officer on Special Duty be declared to be equivalent in status and responsibility to the post of Member, Board of Revenue on one day and to the post of Chief Secretary, on the very next day. Either it was equivalent to the post of Member, Board of Revenue or equivalent. to the post of Chief Secretary. But it could not be equivalent to one post at one time and to another post at another time, when the nature and responsibilities of' the functions    and duties    attached to it remained the same. This    establishes beyond    doubt that, in making the orders dated    26th June, 1972 and 27th June, 1972, the State Government did not apply its mind and objectively determine the equivalence of    the post of Officer on Special Duty, but gave it a rank or grade according as who was the officer going to be appointed to it. That is in fact what the, State Government clearly. and in so many words admitted in paragraph 28 of its affidavit in reply : "although the post of Officer on Special Duty was first created in the rank of Member, Board of Revenue,, with the appointment of the petitioner to that post, the status of that post was equated to that of the Chief    Secretary". This is also borne out by the fact that when the petitioner went on leave, a Member of the, Board of Revenue    was appointed to discharge the functions of the Post of Officer on Special Duty and that post was once again brought down to the rank of Member, Board of Revenue. The-order dated 27th June, 1972 in any event did not contain any declaration as to equivalence    in "responsibility". There *,as thus no compliance with the requirement of r. 9, sub-r. (1) and the appointment of the petitioner    to the post    of Officer on    Special Duty    was accordingly be, liable to be held invalid for contravention of that sub-rule. But we cannot in this petition under Art. 32 give relief to the petitioner by    striking down his appointment to the post of Officer on Special Duty, as    mere violation of r. 9, sub-r. (1) does not involve    infringement of any fundamental right. We, however, hope that the State Government will not drive the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings for obtaining the necessary relief. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground    of challlenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of    the second    ground    based on violation of 14 and 16. Art. 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that Arts. 14 as there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and    independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality    of opportunity    in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the    new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Art. 16 is only an instance of the    application of    the concept    of equality enshrined in Art. 14. In other words, Art. 14 is the genus while Art 16 is a species, Art. 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in    all matters relating to public employment.    The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Arts. 14 and 16 is equality    and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content    and reach of this great equalising principle?    It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose J., "a way of fife", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach.    We cannot countenance any ;attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so Would be to violate its activist magnitude.    Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and confined" within    traditional and doctrinaire limits.    From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim    and caprice of an absolute monarch.    Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of    Art. 16. Arts. 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action    an( ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be    based on valent relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be    guided    by any extraneous or    irrelevant considerations    because    that would be denial of equality. Where    the operative    reason for    State    action,    as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would :amount    to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Arts.    14 and    16. Mala fide exercise of    Power    and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations    emanating from the same vice : in fact the matter comprehends    the former.    Both are inhibited by Arts. 14 and 16 It is also necessary to point out that the ambit and reach of Arts. 14 and 16 are not limited to cases where the public servant    affected has a right to a post. Even if a public servant    is in an officiating position, he can    complain of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 if he has been.    arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise    of. power by the State machine. It is, therefore, no answer to the charge of infringement of Arts ' 14 and 16 to say    that the petitioner had no right to the post of Chief Secretary but was merely officiating in that post. That    might    have some relevance to Art. 311 but not to Arts. 14 and'16.    We must, therefore, proceed to consider whether the transfer of the petitioner first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the    post of Officer on Special Duty was arbitrary, hostile    and is mala fide exercise of power. What was    the operative reason for such transfer;. was it the exigencies of public administration    or extra administrative considerations    having    no relevance to the    question of transfer ? Was the transfer to the post of Deputy Chairman or Officer on Special Duty so irrational or unjust that It could not have been made by any reasonable administration except    for colaterial reasons ? These    are the questions which call for our consideration.

Now, two important considerations must weigh    with us in deter mining our approach to these questions.    First,    the post of Chief' Secretary is a highly sensitive post. It is a post of great confidences lynchpin in the administration and smooth functioning of the administration requires    that there should be complete rapport and' understanding between the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister.    The 'Chief Minister as the head of the Government is in ultimate charge of the    administration    and it is he    who is    politically answerable to the people for the achievements and failures of the Government- confidence ofthe Chief Minister, the Chief Minister may legitimately, in the largerinterests of administration, shift the Chief Secretary    to another post, provided of-course that does not involve violation of any of his legal or constitutional rights. There can be no question in such a case as to who is right and who is wrong. The displacement of the Chief Secretary from his post in such a case would not be arbitrary and it would not attract the inhibition    of Arts. 14 and 16. It may,.    however, be pointed    out that such an action would not, we think, ordinarily be taken except for the most compelling reasons, because, if resorted to without proper justification, it would tend to affect the political neutrality of the public service atid lead to demoralisation and frustration amongst the public servants.

Secondly, with the vast multitudinous activities in which a modern    State is engaged, there are bound to be    some posts which require    for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of intellect and specialised experience. It is always    a difficult problem for the    Government to    find suitable officers for such specialised posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such specialised posts and the choice with the Government is very limited    ' and this choice becomes all the more    difficult,- because    some of these posts, though important    and having onerous responsibilities, do not carry wide executive    powers    and officers may not, therefore, generally be willing to be transferred to those posts.    The Government has    in the. ,circumstances to make the    best possible choice it can, keeping in view the larger interests of the administration.    When, in exercise of this ,choice, the Government    transfers an    officer    from one post to another, the officer may feel unhappy because the new posts does not give him the same amplitude of powers which he    had while holding    the old post. But that does not make    the transfer arbitrary. So long as the transfer    is made on account of the exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatory preference ,of a, junior for the higher post, it would be valid and not open to attack under Arts. 14 and 16.

Now, here the    post of Chief Secretary was admittedly a selection post and after careful examination of the merits of the senior most eleven officers of the Tamil Nadu Cadre of the Indian Administrative 'Service, the second respondent selected the petitioner for the post of Chief Secretary. The petitioner worked as Chief Secretary from 14th November, 1969 up to 6th April, 1971 and. evidently during this period he acquitted himself creditably. It was not the case of either 'of the respondents that the petitioner was not found equal to the task ,or that his work was not satisfactory. In fact the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the first respondent clearly indicates that the petitioner discharged the duties of his office efficiently and to the satisfaction of every one concerned.    Yet the petitioner was    transferred first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer    on Special Duty and in his place Sabanayagam,    who was admittedly junior to him, was not only promoted but also confirmed. The result of confirmation of Sabanayagam as Chief Secretary was that the petitioner, though senior    and proved competent, was permanently excluded from the post of Chief    Secretary. This clearly shows, contended the petitioner, that his transfer first to the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer on Special-Duty was not on    account of administrative reasons but solely to displace him from the key post of Chief Secretary.    That perhaps    might    have been legally and constitutionary unobjectionable, if the post of Deputy Chairuian    and ,Officer on Special Duty were of the same    status    and responsibility    as the    post of Chief    Secretary, but    the argument of the petitioner was that neither of    these    two posts could    be regarded as of    equal    status    and responsibility    as the post of Chief Secretary    because    the post of Chief Secretary is always a unique and unrivalled post in the State administration. The transfer of    the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary first to    the post of Deputy Chairman and then to the post of Officer on Special Duty coupled with the promotion and confirmation ,of Sabanayagam in the post of Chief Secretary was, therefore, clearly    arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16.    This contention, plausible though it may    seem, cannot    be accepted by us, because there is no adequate material placed before    us to    Sustain    it. The premise on    which    this contention is founded is that the posts of Deputy Chairman and ,Officer on Special Duty were not of the same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary, but we cannot say on    the material on record that the validity of    the premise    has been established by the petitioner. So far as the post 'of Deputy Chairman is concerned the petitioner himself accepted that post as being of the    same status and responsibility as the post of Chief Secretary and did not raise    objection against it    and we need    not, therefore, say anything more about it.    The only question is as to the post of Officer on Special Duty. We    think    that this post has not been satisfactorily established by the petitioner to be inferior in' status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary. This of-course does not mean, and we are not prepared to go as far as the learned Chief Justice    in asserting    positively that post was equal in status    and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary. The fact that sales tax accounts for a very large segment of the revenues of the State and it runs into about 120 crores of rupees does not necessarily make the post of Officer on Special    Duty equal in status and responsibility to that of the Chief Secretary. What has to be seen for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties, attached to the two posts. Merely giving the salary of one post to the other does not make for equivalence. We    are, therefore, not prepared to accept the thesis that the    post of Officer on Special duty was equal in status and responsi- bility    to the post of Chief.Secretary as claimed by    the respondents. We entertain serious doubts about it.    But equally it is not possible for us to hold it established on the material on record that this post was inferior in status and responsibility to the post of Chief Secretary, though prima facie it does appear to be so. We cannot, therefore, say that the petitioner was arbitrarily or unfairly treated or that equality was denied to him when he was    transferred from the post of Chief Secretary    and in his place Sabanayagam, his junior, was promoted and confirmed.    The challenge based on Arts. 14 and 16 must therefore fail. We may    now turn to the ground of challenge based on    mala fide exercise    of power. The petitioner set    out in    the petition various incidents in the course of administration where he crossed the path, of the second respondent    and incurred his wrath by inconvenient and uncompromising    acts and nothings and contended that the    second.    respondent, therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus    against    the petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account of exigencies of    administration    that the petitioner    was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary. The incidents referred to by the petitioner, if true, constituted gross acts of maladministration and the charge levelled against the second respondent was that because the petitioner in the course    of his duties obstructed and thwarted    the second respondent in    these acts of maladministration, that    the second    respondent was annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him out of the way and at the same    time deflating him 'that the second respondent transferred    him from the post of Chief Secretary. The transfer of the peti- tioner    was, therefore, in mala fide exercise of power    and accordingly invalid.

Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in    mind two important considerations.    In the first place, we    must make it clear, despite a very strenuous argument to    the contrary, that we are not called upon to investigate    into acts of maladministration by the political Government headed by the second respondent. It is not within our province to embark on a far flung inquiry into acts of commission and ommission charged' against    the second respondent in    the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry.    It is    one thing to say    that the second    respondent was guilty of misrule    an another to say that he had malus enimus against the petitioner    which    was the operative cause of    the displacement of the petitioner from    the post of Chief Secretary. We are concerned only with the latter limited issue, not with the former popular issue. We cannot permit the petitioner to side track the issue and escape the burden of establishing hostility and malus enimus on the part of the second respondent by diverting    our attention    to incidents of suspicious exercise of executive power.    That would be nothing short of drawing a red herring across    the trail. The only question before us is whether    the action taken by the respondents includes any component of    mala fides whether    hostility and    malus enimus against    the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides in very heavy on the    person    who alleges    it. the allegations of mala fides are    often    more easily    made than proved, and the very seriousness of    such allegations demands proof of a high order of    credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once    the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extra-ordinary    and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the    confidence of    the people    in the political custodians of power in    the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all    the greater    to insist on a high degree of proof. In    this context    it may be noted that top administrators arc often required to do acts which affect others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These    acts may land themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fide    of their author when the full facts    and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefor be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party,, particularly when    the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an    office which has a high responsibility in    the administration.    Such    is the judicial perspective    in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they    are highly    placed    in social' life or administrative set up these.    considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach but because, otherwise, functioning    effective y would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this stand point that we    must assess that merits of    the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent.

Now extensive arguments were addressed before us by counsel on both sides and we were taken through a mass of documents, papers and official nothings on this part of the case but we are afraid it is not possible for us to say that the onus of establishing mala fides against the second respondent, heavy as it    is, has been discharged by the petitioner.    The allegations of mala fides have been dealt with fully in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice and we do- not think it will serve    any useful purpose for us to    discuss    the merits of those allegations once again in this judgment, as we are    substantially in agreement with what    the learned Chief Justice has said.    But we cannot help mentioning    that there are certain disturbing    features which cause    us anxiety. We may take by way of example the imputation in regard to the Coom River Project. It seems that in or about the beginning of February 1970 the second respondent asked the Director of Vigilance to look into the affairs relating to Coom Improvement Project as he apprehended    that there were certain malpractices in the execution of that scheme. Whether    this was done by the second respondent on his    own initiative or    at the instance of    the petitioner    is immaterial and we need not go into. that controversy.    The Director of Vigilance, as his subsequent letter dated    25th February, 1970 shows, informed the second respondent    that without a discreet inquiry it would not be possible to allay or confirm the apprehensions with any degree of    credibility since the head of the concerned engineering department    was personally involved in the execution of the scheme and he accordingly by    that letter pointed out to the petitioner that he needed authorisation to embark on the    inquiry    and Government order in that be,half should therefore    be obtained and communicated to him. The petitioner made an endorsement on    this letter on the very next    day with a remark    that the Public (Secret/Confidential) Department should    deal    with    it immediately. The Public (Secret/Confidential) Department prepared a note at the foot of the    letter    and submitted it for    circulation to    the Minister for Works and the second respondent    for orders whether    the Director of Vigilance should be requested to make    a discreet inquiry and send    his report.    The endorsement made below the note shows that it was submitted for circulation on 3rd March, 1970. It appears, however, that this note remained unattended until the middle of September 1970. On 12th September, 1970 the Minister    for Works made an endorsement that the Director of Vigilance may make a discreet inquiry and this endorsement was approved by the second respondent on 20th September, 1970. The    file containing the note together with the endorsements of    the Minister for works and the second respondent was thereafter placed    before the petitioner along with a draft of    the memorandum to be addressed by the petitioner to the Director of Vigilance.    It is common, ground that no memorandum in terms of this draft was issued by the    petitioner to    the Director of Vigilance.    The case of the petitioner was    that he. did not do so because the second respondent subsequently ordered    that no inquiry need be made in this matter.    This position was disputed by the second respondent    who stated that to the best of his recollection he did not make    any such order cancelling the inquiry. That is a matter of con- troversy between the parties and as pointed out above it does not fall within our province to investigate it.    But the fact remains, and that cannot be    disputed, that no inquiry    thereafter took place in the affairs of the    Coom Improvement Scheme. It is a little interesting to note that Sabanayagam addressed a letter dated 31st July, 1971 to the petitioner stating that though the Personal Assistant to the Chief Secretary had been reminded to send back the    file relating to this matter, it had not been received and    the petitioner should arrange to send it back, 13-L522 SCI/74 if it was with him. The petitioner immediately replied to this letter on 8th August, 1971 pointing out that he distinctly remembered    that the second respondent    had subsequently ordered that no inquiry need be made in    this matter    and the file was not with him.    It is    significant that though the petitioner stated categorically that    the second    respondent had subsequently ordered that no inquiry need be made, Sabanayagam did not write back challenging the correctness of this statement.    The file pertaining to    this matter    was all throughout in the    possession of    the Government and even after the petitioner pointed out that it was not with him, curiously enough, it could not be traced until the filing of the petition. In fact, the absence of the Me    could    not have stood in the way of    ordering an inquiry. These and a few other circumstances do create suspicion brunt suspicion cannot take the place of proof and, as pointed out above, proof needed here is high degree of proof. We cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in up-holding the plea of mala fides has    been placed    before us in the present case.    We must, therefore, reject this contention of the petitioner as well. We accordingly    dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.

K.B.N.    Petition dismissed.