LexHARTWELL PRESCOTT SINGH versus THE UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS HARTWELL PRESCOTT SINGH v. THE UTT AR PRADESH GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS. 509 (S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.) Government Servant-Temporary appointment -Officiating in a high post-Order of Reversion-Whether reduction in rank- Petitioner to establish reversion by way of penalty-Termination of service according to conditions of service rules-Validity- Whether dismissal or-removal-Constitution of India, Art. 311. The appellant who was holding a post in a temporary capacity in the Subordinate Agriculture Service, Uttar Pradesh, and was shown in the gradation list as on probation, was appointed with the approval of the Public Service Commission of the United Provinces, to officiate in Class II of the said service as a Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture, After holding the said officiating post for about 10 years, he was reverted to his original temporary appointment "in the face of his protest, Thereafter his services were terminated by giving one month's notice under rule 25, clause (4) of the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules. The appellant contended that Art. 311 of the Constitution applied even to a temporary appointment because it was a civil post held under the Government; that the termination of service amounted to dismissal, or removal from his post, as it conveyed an imputation of inefficiency and unsatisfactory work, and that the order of reversion to his original post amounted to a reduction in rank, as it was by way of penalty. Held, that reversion from a, temporary post held by a person does not per se amount to reduction in rank. To decide whether the reversion is a reduction in rank, the post held. must be of a substantive rank; and further it must be established that the order of reversion was by way of penalty. Termination of service does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Consti- tution, if it is in accordance with the terms of the condi- tions of service. In principle there is no clear distinction between the termination of services under the "terms of a contract", and that in accordance with the"terms of conditions of service". Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, (1953) S.C.R. 688, and Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 26, referred to. · OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1957. 1957 September 19. SlO SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1958] 19s1 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and HartwMrescott order dated October 21, 1955, of the Allahabad High Sfnlh Court Civil Miscellaneous Application 0. J. No. 120 Th4 u11'! Pratk1h of 1954. Go•.r,,_h ntand S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for Ot ITS h ll t e appe ants. /mamJ. G. C. Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the respondent. 1957. September 19. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellant's application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. From the affidavit filed in the High Court by the Personal Assistant to the Director of Agriculture of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the appellant, it would appear that the appellant was appointed from time to time in a temporary capacity to the Sub- ordinate Agricultural Service of the Uttar Pradesh Government by the Director of Agriculture. He served in that service during the periods detailed below:- (a) In Group II of the Subordinate Agricultural Service : (i) From November 16, 1936 to March 18, 1937. (ii) From April l, 1937 to June 29, 1937. (iii) From August 9, 1937 to December 31, 1937. (iv) From January 6, 1938 to February 22, 1943. (b) In Group I of the Subordinate Agricultural Service: From February 23, 1943 to April 24, 1944. While he was still in the Subordinate Agricultural Service he was appointed to officiate in the United Provinces Agricultural Service Class II as a Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture with effect from April 25, 1944, with the approval of the Public Service Commission of the United Provinces. He served in S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 511 Class II of the United Provinces Agricultural Service 1957 in a temporary capacity for about ten years when he Hartwell/Prescott was reverted to his original appointment in the Sub- $ingh ordinate Agricultural Service by an order of the U
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.