JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 07-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
1022 
JARNAIL SINGH & OBS. ETC. 
Vo 
STATE OF PlJNJAB & OBS. 
MAY 7, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ,) 
Constitution of India, Art. 311 (2) - Persons appointed 
on ad hoc basis - Order of termination challenged as casting 
stigma on service career - Whether court entitled to lift th~ 
veil to find out real basis of termination order. 
Articles 
14 and 
16 
-
Protection under 
available to temporary government servants if 
discriminated against. 
-
Whether 
arbitrarily 
i 
The appellants were appointed as Surveyors on variousf 
D 
dates 
between December 
1976 to 1977 
through employment 
exchange on purely temporary and ad hoc basis "up to a certain 
date or upto the date till the regular candidates were 
recollllll!nded by the Board, whichever was later". One of the 
terms of employment stipulated that their services could be 
dispensed with any time without an~ notice or reason. 
E 
-
-
The Government of Punjab, issued a Circular in September;.. 
1980 to the effect that the services of the ad hoc employees 
shall be regularised on certain conditions mentioned therein.. 
Accordingly, 
the 
appellants 
submitted 
their 
requisite 
documents to the authorities concerned for regularisation of 
their services. However, their services were terminated with 
effect fr0111 31.1. 81 by respondent No. 2. The termination ordert 
~· 
stated that "services of the employees are terminated because 
F 
G 
H 
these posts are no longer required." 
+ 
The 
appellants 
challenged the aforesaid orders 
c•f 
termination before the High Court in the Writ Petitions. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petitions summarily on the 
ground that the orders terminating services of the appellants:-
petitioners did not attach any stigma to the service career of 
any of the appellants-petitioners, but they are made in terms 
of employment. 
JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE 
1023 
~ 
In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended on 
behalf of the appellants : (i) that the impugned orders of 
termination were based by way of punishment and cast stigma on 
the appellants; and (ii) that persons who were recruited later 
than the appellants were allowed to continue and to remain in 
service to the detriment of the constitutional rights of the 
appellants and therefore, the impugned orders of termination 
were discriminatory infringing Articles 14 and 16 of the 
~onstitution. On the other hand Counsel for the respondent 
argued : (i) that the orders of termination have been made in 
accordance with the terms of the ad hoc appointment of the 
appellants 
whieh 
provided 
that 
their 
services 
can be 
. terminated at any time without assigning any reason and as 
/such the impugned orders could not be assailed on the ground 
of attaching any stigma to the service career of the 
~ppellants; and (ii) that where the impugned order is perse 
innocuous and it is made in accordance with the terns of the 
appointment, the court should not delve into the circumstances 
which were 
taken into consideration by 
the authorities 
concerned in making the order. 
Allowing the appeals, 
~ 
HELD: 
1, The impugned orders of termination of the 
services of the appellants are liable to be quashed, cancelled 
and set aside. Let appropriate writs of manda1111s be issued 
-. directing the respondents, not to give effect to the impugned 
orders of termination of the services of the appellants. A 
writ of certiorari be also issued quashing and cancelling the 
~ Yimpugned orders of termination .of services of the appellants 
and the appellants be deemed to be in service. (1043 C-D] 
t 
2.1 The mere form of the order is not :;ufficient to hold 
that the order of termination was innocuous and the order of 
termination of the services of a probationer or of an ad hoc 
appointee is a termination simpliciter in accordance with the 
terns of the appointment without attaching any stigma to the 
,..;, 
employee concerned. It is the substance of the order i.e. the 
attending circumstances as well as the basis of the order that 
i have to be taken into consideration. [ 1041 E-F] 
2.2 When an allegation is made by che employee assailing 
the order of termination as one based on misconduct though 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 S.C.R. 
couched in innocuous terms, it is incumbent on the court 
t~ 
lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as the 
basis and foundation of the order complained of. In other 
words, the Court, i

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