9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 2. Allegation of malafide intent in the abolition of the post. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution: The appellant contended that his reversion from a Class I post to a Class III post was a reduction in rank, violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appellant argued that he was confirmed in the post of Landscape Architect and thus should have been absorbed in a similar post upon the discontinuance of his position. However, the court noted that the post of Landscape Architect was temporary and extended periodically until its discontinuance. The appellant admitted that there was no formal order confirming him in the post. The court found that notings by the Revenue Minister suggesting confirmation were not implemented due to the temporary nature of the post. The court cited precedents to establish that confirmation does not automatically follow the end of the probationary period unless explicitly stated in the terms of appointment or service rules. The appellant's probationary period was extended by the government, and no order confirming him was passed. Therefore, the appellant continued as a probationer without a right to the post, leading to his automatic reversion to his original position upon the post's abolition. 2. Allegation of Malafide Intent in the Abolition of the Post: The appellant alleged that the abolition of the post was a dishonest device to remove him due to his disclosures of irregularities and adverse relations with senior officers. He claimed that adverse confidential reports against him were part of a malicious effort to remove him. The State denied these allegations, asserting that the Capital Project was temporary, and the post of Landscape Architect was deemed unnecessary by a Special Committee. The Committee recommended the post's abolition, which the government accepted. The court agreed with the High Court's finding that the decision to abolish the post was in the interest of the administration and not influenced by personal relations or malafide intent. The appellant's allegations of malafides were not substantiated, and the court found no merit in his claim that the post was abolished to punish him. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was no violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and no malafide intent in the abolition of the post. The appellant's reversion to his original position was lawful, and the decision to discontinue the post was justified by administrative needs. The court expressed sympathy for the appellant's situation but upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal without any order as to costs.
|
