E. P. ROYAPPA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

E. P. ROYAPPA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

The petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary to non-cadre posts. There was no substantive appointment as Chief Secretary, and while State Government orders did not strictly comply with the declaration of equivalence required under the rules, mere violation of service rules does not amount to an infringement of fundamental rights under Article 32. There was no sufficient material to establish that the non-cadre posts were inferior in status and responsibility. The burden of proving mala fides was not discharged. Thus, the action did not violate Articles 14 or 16, nor was it mala fide.

Parties
Petitioner: E. P. Royappa; Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 1973
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, IAS Cadre and Pay Rules, Mala Fides in Administrative Action, Transfer and Equivalence of Posts Under Service Law
Constitutional Law Service Law Fundamental Rights IAS Cadre and Pay Rules Mala Fides in Administrative Action Transfer and Equivalence of Posts Under Service Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. P. Royappa

Petitioner

State of Tamil Nadu

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary to non-cadre posts violated Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether there was mala fide exercise of power in the transfer and appointment of the petitioner.
  3. 3 Whether the State Government's actions violated Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954.

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary to non-cadre posts. There was no substantive appointment as Chief Secretary, and while State Government orders did not strictly comply with the declaration of equivalence required under the rules, mere violation of service rules does not amount to an infringement of fundamental rights under Article 32. There was no sufficient material to establish that the non-cadre posts were inferior in status and responsibility. The burden of proving mala fides was not discharged. Thus, the action did not violate Articles 14 or 16, nor was it mala fide.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.