1958 (2) TMI 43 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of quasi-permanent status.
2. Reduction in the number of posts.
3. Same grade or cadre determination.
4. Validity of the impugned orders.
5. Consultation with Union Public Service Commission.
6. Violation of Article 311 of the Constitution.
7. Estoppel and equity.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of quasi-permanent status:
The appellant, who was appointed as a Public Relations Officer (PRO) and later as an Assistant Station Director (ASD), contested the termination of his quasi-permanent status. The court examined whether the appellant had a right to the post of ASD. It was concluded that the appellant's quasi-permanent status in the post of PRO did not extend to the post of ASD, as the latter was not in the same grade or cadre.

2. Reduction in the number of posts:
The court considered whether there was a reduction in the number of posts of PROs, which would justify the termination of the appellant's service under Rule 6(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. It was found that the posts of PROs were held in abeyance as a measure of economy, which constituted a reduction within the meaning of the rule.

3. Same grade or cadre determination:
A crucial issue was whether the post of ASD was in the same grade or cadre as the post of PRO. The court referred to the reorganization of All India Radio in 1944 and subsequent declarations in 1950, which indicated that PROs and ASDs did not belong to the same cadre. The court concluded that the posts were not in the same grade or cadre, and therefore, the appellant could not carry his quasi-permanent status to the post of ASD.

4. Validity of the impugned orders:
The court examined the validity of the orders dated September 7, 1955, and October 11, 1955, which terminated the appellant's service and transferred him to a lower post. It was held that these orders were in consonance with the relevant rules and did not violate the constitutional guarantee under Article 311(2).

5. Consultation with Union Public Service Commission:
The court considered whether the lack of consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) invalidated the declaration of the appellant's quasi-permanent status in the post of ASD. It was found that the order dated December 14, 1953, which purported to give the appellant quasi-permanent status in the post of ASD, was issued under a misapprehension and without the necessary consultation with the UPSC.

6. Violation of Article 311 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the termination of his service violated Article 311 of the Constitution, which provides protection to civil servants against dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank without a proper inquiry. The court held that since the appellant did not have a right to the post of ASD, the termination of his service did not attract the protection of Article 311.

7. Estoppel and equity:
The appellant contended that the government was estopped from terminating his service based on the order dated December 14, 1953, which declared his quasi-permanent status in the post of ASD. The court found that the order was issued under a mistake and did not constitute an independent declaration under the relevant rules. The court also noted that estoppel did not arise in this case, as the appellant was not misled about his status.

Separate Judgment by BOSE J.:
BOSE J. dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the order dated December 14, 1953, clearly and unequivocally made the appellant quasi-permanent in the post of ASD. He emphasized that the mistake was unilateral and should not affect the appellant's rights. BOSE J. advocated for a broader application of equity and justice, suggesting that the courts should administer laws with a fresh outlook to suit modern conditions and ideals. He concluded that the appellant should be allowed to retain his quasi-permanent status in the post of ASD and allowed the appeal and petition with costs.

Conclusion:
The majority judgment dismissed the appeal and the petition, holding that there was no violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 and no discrimination under Articles 14 and 16. The court invited the authorities to consider the appellant's case sympathetically and provide proper relief. BOSE J., in his dissenting opinion, argued for a broader application of equity and justice, allowing the appeal and petition with costs.