1. Case Analysis on Constitution
PRESENTED BY
ABHINANDAN RAY
REGD. NO. 1141845020
S’O’A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
LAW, BHUBANESWAR

2. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 284 of 1972
Decided On: 23.11.1973
Appellants: E.P. Royappa
Vs.
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

3. BACKGROUND
 This is a very prominent case where the Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution was further interpreted and the
ambit of this Article was broaden by the judgment given
by renowned Supreme Court Judges: Ray, A.N. (CJ), J.
Palekar, J. Chandrachud, J. Bhagwati and J. Krishna iyer.
 it was for the first time in Royappa case that the
Supreme Court laid a basic, new dimension to Article
14 and that it was a guarantee against arbitrariness.

4. BRIEF FACTS
 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.
 But then State Government given permission 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 payments as permissible to
the post of Chief Secretary.
 He joined the post on 7 April, 1971.

5. Cont…
 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.
 So on 27 June, 1972 the State Government created a temporary
post of officer on Special Duty of Sales Tax dept. 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.

6. Cont…
 While the post of the Chief Secretary still vacant a junior cadre officer
to the petitioner had been appointed in that post.
 The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
asks for a mandamus or any other appropriate writ 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.
 Also 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 that it was made in mala fide exercise of power, not on account of
necessities of administration or public service, but because the second
respondent was annoyed with the petitioner on account of various
incidents the respondent wanted him out of the way.

7. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
 The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
 Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949
 Article 16 in The Constitution Of India 1949
 Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
 Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules 1954
Rule 9(1)
 Indian Administrative
1954, Rule 4(2)
Service
(Cadre)
Rules

8. OBSERVATION
 The bench rejected the petition unanimously. How ever the
bench was not unanimous in giving reason for giving the
rejection.
 Ray, CJ. for himself and Palekar, J. gave an judgment where
they did not found the necessity of talking about Article 14
and 16 in this present case.
 On the other hand Bhagabati, J. gave another judgment for
himself and Chandrachud, J. also for Krishna Iyer, J. and
therein he not only emphasize on the relevance of the
aforesaid fundamental rights but also put a novel though at
the time innocent interpretation of these articles.
 Since this observations were repeated by him later on in
subsequent cases and since they constitute the foundation of a
new equal protection in India it would be appropriate to quote
the relevant lines in full as below:

9. Cont…
 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.

10. Cont..
 It was contended by the court that Whether such
promotion was by way of substantive appointment or
in an officiating capacity.
 But here in this case the petitioner was appointed in
the officiating manner because he was holding the
office only for 1 year and under rules if one person
will be appointed in officiating capacity they have
very little chance for promotion so here the petition
felt that the govt. plays with his career.

11. Cont…
 In this case we find that justice Bhagabati located the essence
of right to equality in arbitrariness.
 The normal meaning of ‘arbitrary’ is something which is not
based on reason or relevant grounds, and an arbitrary
decision is one which no reasonable person would take.
 In the facts of the case it was quite appropriate to highlight
this aspect of article 14 because petitioner’s allegation could
be summed up as an allegation of having been treated
arbitrarily.
 Therefore, if at the time the decision was pronounced it was
not taken as heralding some radical departure from the
traditional concept of equality right, one should not be
surprised about it.

12. Cont..
 So basically this case involved Class legislation and
reasonable classification.
 Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits
reasonable classifications.
 Class legislation means which makes an improper
discrimination by conferring particular privilege
upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a
large number of persons.
 So here according to the petitioner he was being
discriminated so it’s the violation of Article 14.

13. JUDGMENT
 This petition was thoroughly dismissed unanimous by all
the judges as we have discussed previously and the court
dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.