LexG. S. GLLL AND ORS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
586
G. S. GlLL AND ORS.
]',
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
July 30, 1974
[A. N. RAY, C. J. AND K. K. MATHEW, J.]
Indian
Ad111inistrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 rr. 4 and 9-Afembers of
State Civil Service appointed to cadre posts and equiralent posts and l/reu
rererted-Procedure under Art. 311, it should be followed.
Fundamental Rule 9(19) provides that a government servant officiates in a post
\vhen he performs its duties while another holds a lien on it. and also that the
Central G·overnment n1ay appoint a government servant to officiate in a post on
\vhich another does not hold a lien. The proviso tor. 4 {2) of the Indian Admini-
strative Service
(Cadre) Rules, 1954, provides that the State Government may
under certain conditions and for a certain period, add to a State or joint
cadre one or more posts carrying duties of like nature to cadre posts; and r. 9
of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules provides that subject to certain
conditions the State Government may fill temporarily a cadre post in a State by
a person \vho is not a cadre officer.
Some of the appellants were appointed by the State Government to cadre posts
in the Indian Administrative Service and others were appointed to senior duty posts
\Vhi;h
were declared as equivalent to cadre posts in the Indian Administrative
Service. All of them were reverted to their substantive posts in the State Civil Service.
They challenged the reversion on the ground that it was punitive and that the pro·
cedure under Art. 311 should have been follo\ved. The High Court overruled the
contention.
Disn1issing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (1) Unless a person has a right to a post, an order of reversion from
that post cannot
amount to dismi~al or removll within the meaning of Art. 331
and, a person gets a right to a post only when he is substantively appointed to it.
Therefore, if the appointments of the appellants were officiating appojntments of
either type mentioned in F. R. 9(19), the revision to State Civil Service \VOuld not
attract Art. 311. [588 G-589 A]
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1958] S. C. R. 828, The State of
Bon1bay v. F. A. Abrahani [1962] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 92, at 97, Divisional Personnel
Officer, Southern Railway v. S. Raghavandrachar, [1966] 3 S. C.R. 106, Union of
India and Another v. Gajendra Singh etc. [1972] 3 S. C. R. 660 and Union of India v.
M. L. Capoor and Ors. A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 87, 103 foJlowed.
(2) Since the appointees to the Cadre posts in the Indian Administrative Service
\Vere appointe<l under r. 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, the
appointments could not have been made in any capacity other than in an officiating
capacity. [587 H-588 A]
(3) As regards the other appellants also though the order of appointment does
not indicate that the appointments were in officiating capacity, the fact that they
retained their lien in their posts in the State Civil Services shows that that 1hey were
not appointed substantively to the senior duty posts but only in an officiating
capacity. [588B-C, D-E]
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISD!CTJO>i : Civil
Appeal
No. 1098
1970.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 9th January, 1968
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2301 of
1966.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, S. S. Bhatnagar and V. J.
Francis,
for the appellants.
A
' .,..
'
c
+
D
E
F
G
•
H
'
.J
i
G. s. GILL '" PUN.JAB (Mathew, J.)
587
A
F. S. Nariman, Addi. Sol. Gen. for Union of India, P. P. Rao,
V. C. Mahajan, R. N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra for respcndent
nos. 2 and 3.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
N. S. Bindra S. K. Mehta and 0. P. Sharma for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MATHEW. J.-The appellants filed a petition before the High Court
of Punjab under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing
the orders passed by the State of Punjab reverting them from the posts
held by them in an officiating capacity in the cadre and ex-cadre posts
of senior scale of Indian Administrative Service to their substantive
posts in the State Civil Service from which they were promoted.
The appellants contended before the High Court that the orders
of reversion were punitive in character and, therefore, attracted the·
provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and since they were given
no reasonable opportunity to make their representations against the
reversion, the orders were bad, and prayed fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.