Case Overview

Case Title E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu

Case No. Writ Petition no. 284 of 1972
Jurisdiction Original Jurisdiction
Date of the 23rd November 1973
Judgment
Bench CJ A.N. Ray, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud, Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R.
Krishna Iyer
Petitioner E.P. Royappa
Respondent State of Tamil Nadu
Provisions Article 14, Article 16 and Article 311 of the
Involved Constitution of India

Introduction of EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu

The E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (1974) is a landmark case
in the interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
case centred around the Petitioner, E.P. Royappa was a senior
bureaucrat who challenged his transfer as arbitrary and
discriminatory. The decision in this case not only examined the
validity of administrative actions regarding transfers but also
established the principle that Article 14 extends beyond mere
discrimination and encompasses the arbitrary exercise of state
power. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case highlighted
the necessity for fair administrative procedures and set a precedent
for future cases involving state action.
Historical Context and Facts of EP Royappa vs State of Tamil
Nadu
The case at hand revolves around the Petitioner who was a member
of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in Tamil Nadu. The
Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
Selection as Chief Secretary
On 13th November, 1969 the petitioner was selected for the post of
Chief Secretary to the Government and replaced C.A. Ramakrishnan
who was set to retire on 14th November, 1969 but had been denied
leave. An official appointment order authenticated in the name of
the Governor was issued on the same day.
Equivalence of Chief Secretary and First Member of the
Board of the Revenue
On 14th January, 1970 based on the recommendation of the State
Government the positions of Chief Secretary and the First Member
of the Board of Revenue were considered equivalent and
exchangeable. A notification from the Central Government also
equated the salary of the First Member of the Board of Revenue
with that of the Chief Secretary.
Elevation of Chief Secretary Rank
On 31st August, 1970 a notification was issued by the Central
Government which raised the rank, pay and status of the Chief
Secretary to that of a Secretary to the Government of India and
positioned the Chief Secretary above other state cadre posts
including the First Member of the Board of Revenue.
Appointment as Deputy Chairman
The Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the State
Planning Commission for one year and maintained the rank of Chief
Secretary. The Petitioner however refused to take this position and
went on leave from 13th April, 1971 to 5th June, 1972.
Recreation of the post of Deputy Chairman
The Petitioner upon his return found that the position of Deputy
Chairman had been created again for another year at the Chief
Secretary’s grade but he did not accept the post and asserted that
it had ceased to exist after 13th April, 1972.
Temporary post of the Officer
The Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned the creation of a
temporary post of Officer on Special Duty in the grade of Chief
Secretary for one year or until the need ceased. The Petitioner was
transferred to this post but he did not join and filed a petition.
Issue addressed in EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu
The main question which was addressed in this case-
o Whether the appointment or transfer of the petitioner to a
post not duly legally established violates the second
proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service
(Cadre) Rules, 1954?
o Whether the administrative decision of the State to
compulsorily retire the petitioner from service was
arbitrary and violated his right to equality under Article
14?
o Whether Article 14 only prohibits discrimination and not
arbitrariness in State action?
o Whether the creation of the post along with the
appointment of the Petitioner and transfer to it is done
with mala fide intention?
Legal Provisions involved in EP Royappa vs State of Tamil
Nadu
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Article 14 deals with equality before law. It states that the State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 16 of the Constitution of India
Article 16 of the Constitution deals with the right of equal
opportunity in the matters of public employment. It states that-
1. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State
2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be
 ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any
employment or office under the State
3. Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from
making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes
of employment or appointment to an office under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within, a
State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence
within that State or Union territory prior to such
employment or appointment.
4. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making
any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts
in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the
services under the State.
4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with
consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the
services under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of State are not adequately
represented in the services under the State.
4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering
any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled
up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation
made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of
vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such
class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the
vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for
determining the ceiling of fifty per cent, reservation on total
number of vacancies of that year.
5. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which
provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the
affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member
of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a
particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination
Article 311 of the Constitution of India
 1. No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union
or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a
civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or
removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he
was appointed.
2. No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in
which he has been informed of the charges against him
and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of those charges:
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to
impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be
imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such
inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person
any opportunity of making representation on the penalty
proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall not apply-
a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on
the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge
b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person
or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be
recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry
c)where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is
satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not
expedient to hold such inquiry.
3. If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises
whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is
referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority
empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in
rank shall be final.
Judgment and Impact of EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court in EP Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu addressed
several issues regarding the appointment, transfer and claims of
discrimination of the Petitioner. The Court after analysing the facts
and circumstances of the case ruled that the second proviso of Rule
4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 was
not relevant in this case. Therefore, the Court dismissed the
challenge based on this proviso.
The Court in this case also analysed whether the appointment of
the Petitioner to positions subordinate to the Chief Secretary
constituted discrimination in violation of Article 14 and Article 16.
The Court observed insufficient evidence to support a claim of
arbitrary discrimination or inequality in status. Accordingly, the
challenge under Article 14 and Article 16 was dismissed.
The Court examined that allegations of mala fide intent carry a high
burden of proof and in this case the Petitioner failed to provide
conclusive proof to substantiate claims of malicious intent against
the Chief Minister. The claim was also rejected by the Court.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that there was no
violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 14
and Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the
actions of the State Government was procedurally flawed but it did
not constitute discrimination or mala fide intent and the Petitioner
was precluded from seeking relief under the cited provisions.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws to all people within India:
 Equality before the law
This part states that everyone should be treated equally in the eyes
of the law.
 Equal protection of the laws
This part states that the same law will be applied to all people
equally across society.
Article 14 protects people from discrimination based on caste, race,
religion, place of birth, and sex. It extends the relevant freedoms to
non-citizens as well.
Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal
opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination
based on certain characteristics:
  Equality of opportunity
All citizens have an equal opportunity for employment or
appointment to any office under the state.
 Prohibition of discrimination
No citizen can be discriminated against based on religion, race,
caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
 Reservations
The state can make reservations in public employment for citizens
from any backward class, such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, and Economically weaker sections of citizens.
 Residence requirements
Parliament can make laws that prescribe residence requirements
for employment or appointment to an office.
 State provisions
The state can make provisions for the reservation of appointments
for backward classes that are not adequately represented in the
state's services.
Article 16 was introduced to ensure equality of opportunities in
public employment and to uplift the backward and marginalized
sections of society.
Article 311 of the Constitution of India deals with the dismissal,
removal, or reduction in rank of civil servants:
 No authority can dismiss a civil servant lower in
rank
A civil servant can't be dismissed by an authority that is
subordinate to the one that appointed them.
 The civil servant must be informed of the charges
Before any action can be taken, the civil servant must be informed
of the charges against them.
 The civil servant must be given a reasonable
opportunity to be heard
The civil servant must be given a reasonable opportunity to be
heard in respect of the charges against them.
 The decision of the empowered authority is final
The decision of the authority empowered to take action is final.
There are some exceptions to the above rules, including when:
 The civil servant was dismissed for conduct that led to a
criminal conviction
 The authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably
practicable to hold an inquiry
 The President or Governor is satisfied that it is not
expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of the security
of the State

Conclusion
The E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu (1974) case is an
important ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 14. The
decision of the Supreme Court underscored that while
administrative actions must be free from arbitrariness and the mere
existence of procedural flaws does not automatically equate to a
violation of fundamental rights.