This article is written by Ganesh. R. This article contains a detailed explanation of the facts, issues, relevant legal concepts and provisions, and judgement of the case, Union of India vs. P.K. Roy (1968). Further, this article contains a study on the principle of natural justice and an overview of the State Reorganisation Act, of 1956 for a better understanding of this case.       

Introduction 

“Justice delayed is justice denied.” 

The case Union of India & Anr. vs. P.K. Roy & Ors. (1967) highlights many important legal principles and concepts under which administrative actions must be taken. The case highlights how careful and precise adherence to norms is important in administrative decisions. The important concept discussed in this case was the principle of natural justice, in which a person gets the common basic right during any legal proceeding or administrative action. If any decision-maker violates the principle of natural justice, the proceeding itself is considered void. 

Download Now

In this case, the preparation of the gradation list by the state of Madhya Pradesh did not fulfil the principle of natural justice as well as Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. The above-said Act is crucial to restructure a state and integrate public services jobs. It provides general guidelines on which restructuring and integration can take place (Part X), among other things. This Act also gives power to the Central Government to oversee the State Government during the transition process. This article covers the importance of natural justice in the administrative actions and obligations of the State and the Central Government while preparing the graduation list and during the restructuring of the state.

Details of the case

Name of the case

Union of India vs. P.K. Roy & Ors (1967)

Citation 

1968 AIR 850

Name of the petitioner

Union of India

Name of the respondent 

P.K. Roy & Ors. 

Judge

Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice R.S. Bachawat, Justice G.K. Mitter, Justice K.S. Hegde

Name of the court

Supreme Court of India

Date of the judgement  

09-11-1967

Facts of the case

On September 12, 1959, the State Government released the gradation list under Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act of 1956. The main objective of this provision was to protect the service conditions of the employees who are transferred due to the reorganisation process. However, an issue arose questioning the method used to prepare the gradation list. 

The respondent argued that during the formation of the gradation list, the government did not consider the previous service records and seniority of the employees, which led to uncertainty and ambiguities. In addition to this issue, they also argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to object or present their case in the matter of the gradation list. So they claimed that the finalisation of the gradation list violated the principle of natural justice. 

To resolve this the central government issued certain guidelines for forming the final gradation list, highlighting the importance of fairness in the area of continuous service, and seniority. Therefore, the key guidelines provided by the central government were:

  1. Publish the gradation list in the official gazette.
  2. Add a preamble with the list.
  3. Ensure the list complies with the principles set by the central government.
  4. Allow employees to make representation.
  5. Decide on representation in consultation with the central government.
  6. Accurately incorporate decisions made regarding the representation into the final list.

In summary, these were the guidelines given by the Central Government while preparing and publishing the final list of gradation, that made sure there was transparency and fairness in addressing the concerns of the officers

In the case of Union of India vs. P.K. Roy the Supreme Court evaluated the quashed order of gradation list by High Court, which was prepared by the government of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of assigning a uniform order in service condition of the personnel under the Reorganisation Act of 1956. The engineers (respondent) challenged the order of gradation list of the state government on two main grounds: 

  • improper delegation of powers; and 
  • insufficient opportunity for representation. 

The Supreme Court has been tasked to address these issues, focusing on the process of adhering to the principle of fairness and transparency.

Issues raised in the case

  • Does the formation of the provisional gradation list comply with Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act?
  • Whether the respondents get a fair opportunity to present their case?

Arguments of the parties

The following are the arguments made by the petitioner and respondent during the proceeding of the suit.

Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the provisional gradation list was lawfully made and fulfilled every direction made by the Central Government. They argued that the gradation list is a crucial thing for integrating services. Along with this, they highlighted the importance of continuity service in the substitute state that includes their territory, as mentioned in Part H of the framework. Further to this, the said Act gave the power to the Central Government to direct individuals to work in connection with other alternative states that were formed during the transition. The state also makes sure that the employees are not left behind throughout the reorganisation process, which allows for necessary Government interference. The petitioner also claimed that the actions of the Government are see-through and provide an unbiased opportunity for the employees to make representations regarding their concerns about the list. 

Respondent

In variation, the respondent submits that the provisional gradation list had many defects and weak points, and did not accurately consider the seniority order or uplift fairness among the employees. Further, they argued that the representation of the employees was insufficiently considered by the Central Government, which established the middle ground of fairness in the process and they claimed that there was improper delegation of power. Additionally, they highlighted the irregularity in the procedural process of preparing and making the information accessible to the public. They also claimed that the seniority order must remain the same for the officers coming from the same state to carry on a fair and stable transition.               

Overview of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and its implementation

The main reason for the passing of the State Reorganisation Act, of 1956, was to alter the territories and borderline of the Indian state. This can lead to an organised and more classified map of the country. The basic purpose of the Act is to label the demands of people of similar cultures and traditions, which leads to the formation of new states, the merging of states, or even the splitting of states. The steps taken by the Government must be done in compliance with the State Reorganisation Act, and this Act also provides recommendations and instructions during the integration of services.

Application 

Formation of new states 

This Act enables the creation of new states and the alteration of existing state boundaries. This was done to organise people with similar traditions and cultural identities. This can lead to a suitable and comfortable environment for people with similar traditions.

Division and integration of services 

This Act mandates and provides guidelines for personnel during the integration of services during the process of transition. The process includes other legal concepts such as continuous service records, regulating seniority, and ensuring the officers are given their rightful rights and benefits during the process of transition.

Advisory Committee

This Act provides power to the Central Government to give direction to the State Government during the process of transition or the preparation of the graduation list. The Central Government has the duty to constitute a committee to oversee the transition. They also have the duty to ensure that the rights of affected employees are protected and that they have been given impartial and unbiased treatment to represent themselves.

In summary, the State Reorganisation Act lays out many instructions to both the Central Government and the State Government in accordance with the process of restructuring the states and amalgamation of services. This Act aims to create harmonious administrative actions and helps promote cultural diversity in the country.  

Legal concept involved in the case

Principles of natural justice 

The principle of natural justice is one of the main concepts that would be followed in administrative actions as well as in the proceedings that take place in court. The main concepts that are discussed in this concept are:

Right to a fair hearing 

The right to a fair hearing is one of the important concepts of legal conflicts because opting for this principle ensures fairness and equity in the decision-making process. It highlights both the chance to be heard as well as the motive for which the decision was made. This right to a fair hearing also includes alerting the involved parties about the procedure and process of proceedings and providing them with an equal chance to represent their evidence and materials to either respond or defend them. The main basis of the right is to make sure that the process of hearing is done fairly and equitably, without any bias. This principle of the right to a hearing was discussed in the case of Meneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978). In this case, the petitioner’s passport was taken into legal custody by the Government in the hold of the general public, and this was done without giving her a proper early hearing. The petitioner questioned this action of the Government as it violated the petitioner’s right to privacy, and the petitioner also insisted that there was a lack of principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court of India ruled that taking legal custody of the passport without giving her a sufficient chance to represent her was unjust. Also, the court ruled that the principle of natural justice is implied in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The States Reorganisation Act, 1956

Section 115 

Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act of 1956 deals with the carrying on of service for employees in the previous states, which makes sure that they perform duty in the successor state from the given date. In the context of Union of India vs. P.K. Roy & Ors, this Section played a major role in the respondent argument and their rights to remain in the service despite the changes in the state boundaries. Further, it highlights and encourages the importance of fair treatment and consideration of the workers who were affected by the step which was taken by the Government. So, this section played an important role in the respondents’ arguments regarding the unjust act in the provisional gradation list.

Also, this Section made it clear that any person who is serving in connection with the issue of the former state would continue to serve in the new successor state unless they get direction from the Central Government. This provision also helps in promoting solid employment during the transition period, and the main aim of this Act is to provide regular service during the transition. Also, this Section highlights fair and equitable treatment, which helps in respondent arguments regarding protecting their rights regarding seniority and service conditions. They argued that seniority and service conditions should not be affected without due process and representation.

Section 116 

Section 116 of the State Reorganisation Act makes it clear that the continuation of officers in the post they hold on or before the appointed day of state reorganisation. This Section made a huge impact during the argument of the respondent in protecting their rights. It makes it clear and guarantees the officers, like respondents, who were working as assistant engineers in the previous state, would continue to work in their same role without any disturbance. Also, this provision ensures that there is no administrative disturbance during the reorganisation and it protects the posts of the respondent and other working employees during the transition period. This means the respondent can continue in their post, and they are protected with job security during the transition. 

Reorganisation or reconstruction of services is not an easy job to do, it needs clear guidelines and rules to maintain peace and order among the employees, and Section 116 guarantees those measures and guidelines. Also, Section 116 addresses the issue of seniority and the proper ranking of the employees from various regions, as it emphasises the importance of maintaining the existing post until the reorganisation is formally established. 

Section 117

Section 117 of the Act gives authority to the Central Government in issuing directions to the State Government to integrate and reorganise the service and give effect to the Act. In the case of Union of India vs. P.K. Roy, this Section played an important role because it gave full authority to the Central Government to oversee the State Government and to guide them during the process of integration, ensuring that the process was conducted fairly and checking whether the process complied with the established principles. During the proceeding of the case, the respondent argued that the integration process and counting in the formation of the gradation list was not properly managed, and the representation was not sufficiently given or considered. On such occasions, the Central Government has the power to intervene and address the grievances by providing necessary steps to make sure it complies with the official principles and the Act’s provisions. The oversight of the state’s actions during the reformation by the central executive, also ensures that there would be unbiased treatment and safeguard of service conditions, including the order of seniority in the new structure. The respondent’s dependence on this provision highlighted their claim for a fair and clear process, which the respondent claimed was inadequate and lacking.

Constitution of India

Article 162

Article 162 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, gives out the executive power of the state to make decisions and to take care of matters within the state legislature by making essential laws. This means the State Government has the power to make laws about these matters unless a special rule is enacted to govern the issues at hand. Article 162 plays a major role during the transition period, such as the restructuring of states. During this process, the state has the power to temporarily manage its service and recruitment processes. In relevance to this case, Article 162 emphasises the importance of the state’s role in regulating the jobs and conditions of service for the respondent and other employees of assistant engineers in the middle of the reorganisation process of the state and their service. However, the respondent argued that the state’s actions should comply with the established principles of the Central Government to maintain fair and equitable treatment. Therefore, in making sure that the state would not violate or overuse its power in service matters during the transition, the state must do so in a way that follows the official standard principles of the Central Government.

Article 2

Article 2 of the Indian Constitution gives power to the Parliament to include and admit new states into the Union or institute new states under the given terms if it seems to fit. This provision plays a major role in the reorganisation of states, as it provides the legal framework for establishing and incorporating new states and territories within India. In significance to this case, Article 2 was pivotal because it permitted the reorganisation of the states, which affected the respondents, who were assistant engineers and employees. 

Reorganisation is nothing but the splitting and incorporation of territories within the country and the establishment of new administrative structures. Therefore, the respondent’s and other officers’ employment and their need to combine their specific roles into the new state structure were the main outcomes of the actions that were taken under Article 2 of the Indian Constitution during the transition. So, the main function of this provision is to ensure that the process of creating or establishing a new state must be done lawfully, and it should follow every guideline provided by the law.  

Article 3

Article 3 of the Indian Constitution plays a major role in the alteration of states and services. This Article gave power to the Parliament to form new states, change the boundaries, merge states, or change the name of the existing states. This Article is the main provision that regulates the reorganisation of the state boundaries and administrative zones within the territory. Article 3 allows the Parliament to make necessary changes in the territory of the country’s map that can affect the governance of the state and the administration of the affected locations. 

In relevance to this case, Article 3 plays a crucial role because it authorises the creation of new states and the making of relevant changes in the territory of the states, which can directly affect the employment of engineers. These changes mandated by Article 3 lead to the necessity of the integration of different services and determining the seniority of personnel. Therefore, Article 3 provides the legal basis for the administrative changes and territorial changes.

Article 4

Article 4 makes sure that any law made under Article 2 and Article 3 of the Indian Constitution must be included in the provisions to amend in the first and fourth schedules of the Indian Constitution, in which the states and territories of India and their representation in Parliament are listed. This article plays an important role in this case because it helps in addressing the correct legal and administrative details that are required during the reorganisation of the state. Further, it provides Constitutional backing to the amendments and provisions that are needed for the integration of the services and in managing the transition of employees like assistant engineers. The assistant engineer and the respondents challenged the provisional gradation list based on this article and the idea to which it was enacted. For the same purpose, this article also helps in arguing the context of fair and equitable treatment and adhering to both the spirit and the law.   

Judgement of the case

The Supreme Court, in this case, highlighted many legal principles and provisions to uphold justice and equity. The Supreme Court dealt with the concept of legality in the preparation of the provisional gradation list, and they also dealt with the respondent’s contention on violation of the principle of natural justice. 

Rejection of improper delegation argument 

The High Court, in this case, held that the preparation of the provisional gradation lists by the government of Madhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 is unwarranted. The High Court also added that the final list published by the state government was illegal and ultra vires as the powers delegated by the central government to the state government were not in accordance with the law. This judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in holding that the delegated powers by the Central Government to the State Government were improper and illegal. The Apex Court also added that, since the State Government took proper measures to uphold the principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness, the rights of the employees are not violated. 

Further, it was held that central government had not delegated it’s essential statutory function because it was the central government which laid principles of integration, considered the representations and passed final orders, gave directions to state government before publishing the gradation lists. The court also confirmed that the principle of “delegatus non potest delegare” is not applicable to the present case as there was no improper delegation by the Central Government to the State Government.

Quashing of the final gradation list 

In this case, the respondent should have been given a sufficient chance to raise their concern before the final gradation list was published. Since the respondents were not given sufficient opportunity to present their side, the final gradation list dated April 6, 1962, is considered invalid and unlawful regarding category 6 (specific rank in the gradation list). As a result, the court invalidated only that part of the notification. The rest of the state government notification on the gradation list was considered to be valid and will stay in place. The court also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and for category 6 the central government should allow the respondent to represent their side and then, they have to finalise and publish the list in compliance with the law. 

Violation of natural justice 

The court found that the preparation of the gradation list did not fulfil the requirements of natural justice because the respondents argued that they were not given the opportunity to present their case or raise objections (right to a fair hearing) before the finalisation of the gradation list. The court found this to be a clear violation of the principle of natural justice.  

Directions from the Central Government 

The court also noted that the State Government has the duty to follow the orders and directions given by the Central Government in the matter of reorganising the state. However, in this case, the state government did not follow the established principles that were given by the central government in the matter of the reorganisation of the state and the service conditions in the gradation list that was submitted by the state government.

Advisory committee duty 

The court emphasises the importance of the committee in the restructuring of the state because its role is to ensure that fair and unbiased treatment is given to the individuals. In this case, the State Government did not follow the instructions given by the advisory committee or the principles established by the Central Government during the preparation of the gradation list. The respondents were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case, this is a violation from the side of the State Government.

Courts remedial measures 

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to complete the gradation list in conformity with Section 115(5) of the State Reorganisation Act,1956. This order by the court also counts, giving a fair chance to the officers to present their case,  and their seniority must be determined based on clear principles. 

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the importance of sticking with the principle of natural justice. Also, they underscore that the State Government has the duty to follow the official principles of the Central Government and should strictly follow the provisions of the said Act. This case was considered a landmark judgement because it talks about the importance of giving fair treatment to the affected individual during administrative actions. 

Writ of Certiorari and its relevance to the case  

A writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court to a lower court or any tribunal to review the records of the case or to review the errors or jurisdictional issues. This writ ensures that the lower court acts within its given limit and that it does not cross its limit. It also makes sure that the lower court and the tribunal adhere to the principle of natural justice. In the case of the Union of India vs. P.K. Roy, the writ of certiorari is a tool used to correct or review administrative or judicial decisions when an authority acts unfairly. In this case, this writ was used to check that the state and central government followed proper procedures and legal norms while forming the gradation list. 

The respondent in this case argued that the gradation list which was prepared by the state government, did not comply with the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, and also violated the principle of natural justice. So the writ of certiorari was very helpful in quashing certain parts of the graduation list (category 6), which was found to be an unlawful part of the notification. Also, the court directed the central government to rectify the notification.

Relevant judgements referred in the case

Board of Education vs. Rice (1911)

Facts 

In this case, the Board of Education was in charge of determining the grants to the educational institutions based on various criteria. During the granting process, many educational institutions thought the process was unfair and arbitrary. Rice, which represents an educational organisation, assert that the board’s way of determining the grants was unjust. Also, they argued that they did not get to represent themselves to present their side.

Issue

Whether the process adopted by the board of education is fair?

Whether the affected parties were given adequate opportunity to present their case?

Judgement 

The House of Lords ruled that the board of education must follow the official principles and must give equal opportunity to every educational establishment. Also, they highlighted that administrative decisions must be made based on lawful and adequate information. 

Relevance to the main case 

This case is highlighted during the argument because, in this case, the House of Lords highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in administrative procedures. As we see, the preparation of the provisional gradation list by the state of Madhya Pradesh was challenged on the basis of unfair treatment and a lack of transparency in administrative actions. Therefore, making this case crucial, establishing the principles which are mentioned in Rice is highly relevant.  

Pradyat Kumar Bose vs. the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court (1955)

Facts 

In this case, the petitioner was a member of the Calcutta High Court, and he was dismissed by the chief justice on the charge of misconduct. Therefore, Pradyat Kumar Bose challenged his dismissal on the basis of natural justice. He argued that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his side against the allegations. 

Issue

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was under the purview of the principle of natural justice?

Judgement 

The Supreme Court of India held that the dismissal was valid. Also, they highlighted that the Chief Justice has every right to dismiss his staff for misconduct. The court also addressed the importance of natural justice and said that the principle of natural justice must be followed within the context of administrative actions and it is the duty of the chief justice of the court.   

Relevance to the main case 

This case is relevant to the main issue because it underscores the importance of the authoritative steps taken by the chief to make decisions within their area of jurisdiction. As of the main case, the state of Madhya Pradesh was under the instruction of the central authority.

Local Government Board vs. Arlidge (1915)

Facts 

In this case, the respondent was a property owner, and his premises were accused by the local Government board under the ambit of housing and sanitation laws. The respondent argued that he was not aware of the evidence against him and that he was not given the opportunity to represent himself to defend himself from the allegations made by the local Government board against him.  

Issue

Whether the local Government board follows the principle of natural justice?

Judgement 

In this case, the House of Lords held that the administrative bodies have no obligation to follow every rule and judicial procedure of the court, but they still have to follow the primary principles and must act fairly to uphold the principle of natural justice. Also, they mentioned that the board did not need to act exactly like a court during its proceeding, but the decision from the board must be sensible and based on the proper material. Therefore, the House of Lords mainly underscores the importance of natural justice and the representation of individuals.

Relevance to the main case

The House of Lords mentioned the importance of the representation of individuals and the principle of natural justice. In the main case, the respondent asserted that the preparation and publication of the provisional graduation list by the state of Madhya Pradesh did not reach the fairness which is mentioned in the established principles. This principle helped the respondent during their argument. 

Fowler (John) & Co. (Leeds) vs. Duncan (1941) Ch. 450

Facts

In this case, John Fowler & Co. was a business holder, and they got their site subjected to a restriction by the local authority. They claimed that it was made without a fair chance to speak, and they did not get the chance to present their side. Also, they claimed that the local authority did not inform them about the contention or give them a chance to contest their side.  

Issue

Whether the action of the local authority is valid?

Judgement

The court held that the decision made by the local authority is not valid because they failed to follow the principle of natural justice. Also, they highlighted that during the process of proceeding, every party must get an equal chance of representing themselves against the allegation made against them. Therefore, in this case, the verdict mentions the necessity of procedural fairness in administrative actions. 

Relevance to the main case

In this case, the court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions. This principle supported the respondents during their arguments and supported their statement on unfair treatment and inadequate opportunity to represent themselves. 

Shri Bhagwan & Anr. vs. Ram Chand & Anr (1965)

Facts 

In this case, the petitioner and another appellant were the employees who were affected by a decision made by the Government regarding their seniority and their service conditions. The order from the Government about the modification in their service conditions was done without giving them a proper representation and opportunity to be heard. Also, the petitioner asserted that the conclusion by the Government violated the principle of natural justice, as they were not given the chance to present them. 

Issue 

Do government decisions violate the principle of natural justice?

Judgement 

The Supreme Court held that in every administrative action, they must follow every step of the principle of natural justice and must give an equal and fair chance to the affected individual to present their case. Therefore, in this case, the Government’s conclusion was quashed, and the court highlighted the importance of natural justice.

Relevance to the main case 

In the case of Union of India vs. P.K. Roy, the main issue was the concept of natural justice. The respondents in the case assert that they were not given the chance to present their case in accordance with the gradation list that was prepared by the state of Madhya Pradesh. The principles established in the case of Bhagwan & Anr vs. Ram Chand & Anr support the argument of the respondent in the main case by underscoring the judgement regarding the importance of natural justice.

Conclusion 

This case revolves around the theory of natural justice and the importance of equitable and unbiased treatment for the individual. The major issue in the case was the formal and legal validity of the gradation list that was prepared for restructuring the state and its service. Further, during the case process, the court found many issues and crookedness in the formation of the list, and the court made several prime decisions to settle the issues at hand.

The court found that the final list did not fulfil the official principles and did not follow the statute of Section 115(5) of the 1956 Act. During the proceeding of the case, several precedents were mentioned, which was a huge backbone to verify the contention of the respondent. The rules and principles established in the case of Bhagwan & Anr vs. Ram Chand & Anr were the key to settling the issue. Furthermore, the court underlines that the State Government has the duty to follow the established rules on reorganisation and they must follow the provisions of the said Act during the composing of the final list. 

Also, this case highlights the legal necessity of adhering to both the procedural and legal aspects of administrative work. By doing so, they can make sure the individual’s rights are protected and the administrative decisions are made fairly and transparently to the public or the affected individuals. In conclusion, any administrative actions that are taken must adhere to the principle of natural justice, and they should give equal opportunity to the affected individuals in their representation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Apart from the discussed principle of natural justice, what are the other two principles of natural justice?

Audi alteram partem (hear the other side)

This case highlighted the crucial concept of administrative bodies following natural justice and ensuring the principle ‘audi alteram partem’ is followed. This principle is one of the key concepts of the principle of natural justice. This principle states ‘hear the other side.’ This concept makes sure that every party in the suit is heard unbiased and equally before they conclude a decision. During the case, the decision-maker of the administrative operation or must give equal opportunity to the parties involved in the case to make a fair representation to present their case. The main approach of this principle was that parties involved in the case must illuminate any charges or evidence that are presented against them, and they must give themselves an impartial opportunity to defend or respond to the contention or evidence made against them. 

By applying this principle, we can clearly avoid arbitrary and biased decisions. Also, this principle helps in upholding fair decisions in the course of legal proceedings. Also, in the case of Ridge vs. Baldwin (1964), the head constable of Brighton was discharged from his post due to his absolution on a criminal charge. However, in this dismissal, he was not given enough opportunity to explain his side. So, he challenged this action, arguing that it violated the principle of natural justice, and the House of Lords held that the dismissal was illegal as it was done without giving him enough opportunity to defend himself. 

Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in their own case)

This principle translates to ‘no one should be a judge in their own case.’ It means any individual with a personal interest in the decision of the case should be involved in the decision-making of the case. The main use of this principle is that the decision-maker must act impartially and freely while concluding a decision. The decision-maker should not act biased to gain any interest due to the final outcome of the case. The principle is designed to restrict any possible bias and partial treatment of both sides of the parties in conflict. It makes sure that the final decisions are made by those who are impartial, which means ensuring the trustworthiness of the fair process of the case proceeding. 

This principle was highlighted in the case of Dimes vs. Grand Junction Canal (1852), in which Lord Chancellor Cottenham gave a decision in the goodwill of the Grand Junction Company while holding a surplus amount of share in that company, and this decision by the Lord Chancellor was questioned based on a natural justice violation. The House of Lords held that the decision-maker should not get any personalised benefit from the final outcome of the ruling. This was also discussed in the case of A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (1969) and it was considered a landmark judgement in Indian administrative law.

What was the State Government’s position on the final gradation list?

The State Government of Madhya Pradesh argued that the final gradation list was valid, that it fulfilled the legal necessity and requirements of the established principles by the Central Government, and that it was also in compliance with the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act.

Which provision is considered to be central to this case?

The main and key provisions of the case from the State Reorganisation Act were Section 115(5), which deals with the integration of the service, and Section 117 of the State Reorganisation Act, which states that the Central Government has the authority to give direction to the State Government in regards to the integration of the service and the formation of the gradation list.

What was the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in this matter?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favour of the respondent, stating that the list formed by the state regarding the combination of services was unlawful, and the list was quashed. Also, the court gave the order to the Central Government to make sure that the final list follows every official principle and check it follows the said Act. 

What was the relation to the principle of natural justice?

In this case, the respondent was not given a fair and sufficient chance to present his side, and the court found that this was a clear breach of the principle of natural justice. Also, the court found that in the process of administrative actions, they must follow the principles of natural justice.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here