1969 (5) TMI 62 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Applicability of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942.
2. Validity of reversion orders without compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. Effect of the repeal of the 1942 Rules by the 1960 Rules.
4. Whether the reversion of respondents amounts to "reduction in rank" under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
5. Validity of reversion orders post-1st November 1966, considering communication and the reorganization of Punjab.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Applicability of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942:
The respondents in the first bunch of appeals were promoted and appointed on an officiating basis as Sub-Divisional Officers in the Punjab Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) on various dates from March 1, 1956, to January 9, 1963. They challenged their reversion orders on the ground that they were governed by the 1942 Rules, specifically Rule 12(3), which delimited the maximum period of probation to 3 years. The respondents argued that on successful completion of that period, they became automatically confirmed as members of the service and could not be reverted without compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The court analyzed the material provisions of the 1942 Rules and concluded that officiating Sub-Divisional Officers, not being Assistant Executive Engineers, were not governed by the 1942 Rules. The court held that the 1942 Rules did not apply to the respondents and their reversion was not governed by these rules.

2. Validity of reversion orders without compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution:
The court applied the two tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India to determine whether the reversion of the respondents amounted to "reduction in rank" under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The tests are: (1) whether the Government servant had a right to hold the post or rank, and (2) whether he had been visited with evil consequences. The court found that the respondents were appointed purely on an officiating basis and did not have a right to hold the posts. The court also held that the reversion did not carry a stigma or operate as a punishment, and therefore, did not amount to "reduction in rank" under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

3. Effect of the repeal of the 1942 Rules by the 1960 Rules:
The court noted that the 1942 Rules were expressly repealed by Rule 24 of the 1960 Rules. The re-enacted 1960 Rules did not apply to the respondent-petitioners, who could not be considered members of Class I Service. The court held that the 1942 Rules had ceased to exist with effect from March 18, 1960, and therefore, the respondents could not claim the protection of the 1942 Rules.

4. Whether the reversion of respondents amounts to "reduction in rank" under Article 311(2) of the Constitution:
The court held that the reversion of the respondents to their substantive rank of Overseer/Draftsman did not amount to "reduction in rank" within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the respondents were appointed to officiate in the higher posts on the understanding that they would be reverted if found unsuitable. The reversion was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of their service and did not carry a stigma or operate as a punishment.

5. Validity of reversion orders post-1st November 1966, considering communication and the reorganization of Punjab:
The court noted that the impugned orders were passed on October 28, 1966, but were communicated after November 1, 1966, the appointed day on which the former State of Punjab ceased to exist and four successor States came into being. The court held that the impugned orders remained ineffective and inoperative because they were not communicated to the respondents or publicized in the appropriate manner before November 1, 1966. The court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Resham Singh's case and the Supreme Court's decisions in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harike to conclude that an administrative order takes effect from the date it is communicated to the person concerned or is otherwise publicized in the appropriate manner.

Conclusion:
The court annulled the impugned orders on the ground that they were not communicated before November 1, 1966, and therefore, remained ineffective and inoperative. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.