GAJRAJ SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 28-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

794 
GAJRAJ SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
March 28, 1973 
[J. M. SHELAT, ACTING C.J. AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
Constitution, art. 311-Madhya Bharat-Retrenchment Terms in res-
pect of employees of former States merging to form new State-Em-
ployees of certain categories provisionally absorbed-Could be retrenched 
for certain specified reason~When employee is retrenched for one or 
more of such reasons Art. 311 Is not attracted-Tests ar< obiectlve orul 
retrenchn1e11t order can be 'defended on otner grounds even if one ground 
falls. 
The appellant was in 1934 first appointed as a constable in the erst-
while State of Gwalior and was promoted in 1945 to the post of Sub-
lnspector. 
In May 1948 the rulers of Gwalior, Indore and certain other 
States formed und<lr a covenant executed by them, a new State, called the 
United States of Madhya Bharat. The appellant was allowed to work as 
A 
B 
c 
a Sub-Inspector in the new State of Madhya Bharat but his name wa' 
e.1'!ered from the very beginning, that is from May 1948, in the list of 
D 
provisionally absorbed servants,' and remained so during all material times. 
By n notification, dated December 15, 1948, the Madhya Bharat Govern-
ment published rules, called the 'Retrenchment Terms' which were revised 
by another notification dated July 9, 1949. In the said notification prin-
ciples were laid down for the selection of Government Servants for ro· 
trenchment. The appellant was retrenched by an order signed by the 
Deputy Inspector-General, Central Range, on the ground that the appellant 
had a consistent bad record under re!renchment category 2 of the Re· 
E 
trenment Terms. 
In appeal the Inspector-General 
corillrmed the said 
order also under categories 4 and 7 of the said Terms, that is, besides the 
ground of a consistently bad record, also on the ground df the appellant 
not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, and on 
the ground that the appellant for reasons considered 
adequate by the 
Government, could not be absorbed in the Madhya Bharat service. The 
writ petition filed by the appellant challenging this order was dismissed by 
the High Court on the ground of delay, though Art. 311 of the Constitu-
F 
tion was held to be attracted. In 1960 the appellant filed a suit relying 
on Art. 311. The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court however 
allowed the State'• appeal. By special leave the appellant appealed to 
this Court and contended: (i) that on the construction of the said Re-
trenchment Terms the impugned order amounted 
to one of dismissal, 
attracting the provisions of Art. 311; and (ii) that since the ground of 
consistent bad record amounted to a stigma, and could not therefore be 
C 
relied on in support of the order, the order fell and could not be sustain-
-. 
cd on the ground of lack of minimum educational qualification. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) The classification of persons in the seven categories was 
clearly made to select persons 'from out of those who were in excess of 
the requirements of the new State. 
Since they were not to be absorbed, 
they could not be said to have been the employees of the new State and 
H 
Art. 311 therefore could not apply to their 
cases. The claim of the 
appellant that the impugned order amounted to punishment or that for 
that rc,1son Art. 311 was attracted was clearly misconceived. 
[SOIB] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GAJRAJ V, M.P. STATE (She/at, Acting C.J.) 
795 
(ii) The respondent-State hild relied upon the cateaories 2, 4 and 7, 
as ground for the impugned order. So far as category 4 was concerned, 
there can be no doubt that the appellant did not have the minimum educa· 
tional qualification required for the post of a Sub-Inspector. Since that 
was so, he would also fall in cateaory No, 7, that is, as a person who 
could not, for reasons considered adequate by 'the Government, be ab· 
sorbed in the service of the new State. Eve" if therefore, category 2 
could not for some reason or the other be taken into consideration, cate-
gories 4 and 7 were relevant and valid. · ·;he mere fact that the Govern-
ment could not avail of cateaory 2 did not mean that it could not rely on 
the other two grounds. The reason is that this was not a cnse of subjec-
tive satisfaction, where on failure of one of the grounds it would be im-
possible to predicate whether the relevant authority could have reached 
its satisfaction only on the basis of the rest of the grounds.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.