Skip to content


Mohamed Yousuff HussaIn Vs. Deputy Secretary (G.A.D.) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1866 of 1965
Judge
Reported in(1967)IILLJ155Kant; (1966)2MysLJ704
ActsMysore State Civil Services (Kannada Language Test and Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1962 - Rules 14, 14(2) and 24
AppellantMohamed Yousuff Hussain
RespondentDeputy Secretary (G.A.D.) and anr.
Excerpt:
- karnataka land reforms act, 1961.[k.a. no. 10/1962]. section 48a: [h.v.g. ramesh, j] grant of occupancy right - rejection of form no.7 finding of the land tribunal that the land is not a tenanted land petitioner cultivating the land originally as a tenant and thereafter by virtue of the registered sale deed as owner of the land - as on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to it the land was a tenanted land, vested with the government held, even if the sale in favour of the petitioners husband is held to be invalid, originally it was tenanted land and the land was vested with the government. the land tribunal has to consider the application for grant of occupancy rights to the petitioner as he was holding the land as a tenant prior to and as on 1.3.1974. .....came into force and no time was specified in the rules of recruitment specially made for such posts for passing those examinations, it is clear that unless they were exempted from passing those examinations, the petitioners had two years' time from april 20, 1964 for passing the departmental examination. but the impugned reversions were made before the expiry of that period of two years. so it is indisputable, and it is also not disputed by the advocate-general that the reversions were made prematurely. 3. so we set aside the reversions. 4. but sri venkataranga ayyangar and sri rama jois contend that the petitioners before us are allottees from the state of hyderabad and that under rule 14(2) of the relevant rules as it now stands amended by the amendment made on april 1, 1964, the.....
Judgment:

Per Somnath Ayyar, J.

1. In these petitions the petitioners who were senior assistants were reverted to the post of an assistant on the ground that the departmental examination was not passed by them. The post of senior assistants was created for the first time on April 18, 1964 and the relevant rules requiring a senior assistant to pass the departmental examination came into force on 20 April 1964.

2. Rule 24 of the Mysore State Civil Services (Kannada Language Test and Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1962, as it stands amended after it was amended on April 1, 1964, contains a proviso that the time for passing any departmental examination which may be prescribed for a post after those rules came into force, shall be two years from the date of the order prescribing the said examination if no time is otherwise specified in the rules of recruitment specially made for that post. Since departmental examinations were prescribed after the Mysore State Civil Services (Kannada Language Test and Departmental Examinations) Rules came into force and no time was specified in the rules of recruitment specially made for such posts for passing those examinations, it is clear that unless they were exempted from passing those examinations, the petitioners had two years' time from April 20, 1964 for passing the departmental examination. But the impugned reversions were made before the expiry of that period of two years. So it is indisputable, and it is also not disputed by the Advocate-General that the reversions were made prematurely.

3. So we set aside the reversions.

4. But Sri Venkataranga Ayyangar and Sri Rama Jois contend that the petitioners before us are allottees from the State of Hyderabad and that under rule 14(2) of the relevant rules as it now stands amended by the amendment made on April 1, 1964, the petitioners are exempted from passing the departmental examination for purposes of the first-stage promotions. It is contended by them that the promotion which they earned to the post of a senior assistant was a first-stage promotion. That, for a first stage promotion such as the one to which rule 14 refers, the passing of a departmental examination is unnecessary and dispensed with, if the other conditions specified in that sub-rule are fulfilled, is clear from that sub-rule.

5. But it is not necessary for us to say anything more in this matter at this stage, since the Advocate-General tells us that the question whether the petitioners fall within that sub-rule is under serious examination by the appropriate authorities. The petitioners will of course be at liberty to pursue such remedies as may be available to them if there is a reversion in transgression of the provisions of that sub-rule. That being so, it is not necessary for us to say anything more on that matter.

6. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //