K. S. SRINIVASAN versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1295 · Decided: 18-02-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUH'l' REPORTS 
K. S. SRINIVASAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AlYAR, s. K. DAS, 
A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.) 
1295 
Union Service, Termination of-Servant in quasi-permanent 
status-Post kept in abeyance-Ordered to carry the status 
while officiating in new appointment under miisapprehension-
Validity-Test--Consultation with Federal Public Service Com-
misS!ion1 if mandat01rY-Servant, if entitled to Constitutional 
protection-Constitution of India, Art, 311(2)-Central Civil 
Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1947, rr. 3, 4 and 6(1). 
The appellant held the post of a Public Relations Officer, 
AU India Radio, and was declared to be in quasi-permanent 
·Service under r. 3. of the Central Civil Service (Temporary 
Service) Rules, 1949. As a measure of war economy the 
Government decided to hold the post "in abeyance" and 
the appellant was appointed to officiate as Assistant Staion 
Director in a temporay capacity and was ordered to carry 
with him his quasi-permanent status wh.iie holding his new 
post. On the objection of the Union Public Service Commis-
sion, however, the service of the appellant was terminated 
and he was appointed to a temporary past of Assistant In-
formation Officer . which belonged to a lower grade. The ap-
pellant moved the High Court for a writ of certiorari. His 
contentilon was that as, admittedly, he had not been called 
upon to show cause, Art. 311(2) of the Constitution was vio~ 
lated. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the 
order permitting the· appellant to carry his quasi-permanent 
status to his new post having been made under a misappre-
hension that the post of Assistant Station Director belonged 
to the same grade as that of the Public Relations Officer, his 
service was terminable under the relevant Service Rules: 
Hel'd (per Das, C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. Das and 
A. K. Sarkar, JJ., Bose, J. Dissenting), that the post of Assis-
tant Station Director was not a post in the same grade as 
that of the Public Relat:ons Officer and under the relevant 
Service Rules he could not carry his quasi-permanent status 
to the new post; as the order . permitting the appellant to 
carry 'his quasi--permarJent status was passed under a mis-
apprehension and was not intended to confer ·on him 
that 
status independently in the new post, his service was termi-
nable under r. 6(1) of the Rules. 
It is well settled that. if a servant has no right to the post 
and his service can be terminated under the Service Rules, 
Art. 311 (2) is not attracted. Consequently, the appellant who 
was appointed on a purely temporacy capacity, could not 
seek. the protection of Art. 311 (2). 
· 
· 
19J8 
.February 18. 
1968 
K. B. Srinivasan 
v. 
Union of India 
1296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958) 
Parshotam Lal Dhinura v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 
828, relied on. 
Admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admit-
ted although it may in certain circumstances operate as an 
estoppel. In the present case, as the appellant was in no way 
misled as to his quasi-permanent status by the errom!<lus 
order of the Government, no question of estoppel could arise. 
Held, further, that the word 'reduction' in cl. (ii) of r. 
6(1) of the Rules is not necessarily confined to abolition but 
also includes keeping iri abeyance of posts and the ·Nord 'certi-
fy' occurring. therein does not necessarily imply tQat a formal 
order is essential. 
The same scale of pay is not the only test for finding out 
if a particular post belongs to the same grade as another 
within the meaning of the proviso to cl. (ii) of r. 6(1) of the 
Service Rules, nor does the tact that the two belong to the 
same class determine the question. 
Quasi-permanent status is a creature Of the Rules and a 
servant who seeks the benefit of r. 3 must be held to be bound 
by the proviso to r. 4(b) of the Rules. 
State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958] S.C.R. 
533, neid inapplicable. 
Per Bose, J .-The order of. the Government permitting 
the appellant to carry with him the quasi-permanent status 
he had in his former post was clearly intended to confer on 
the appellant quasi-permanent status in his new post and the 
Government could not be allowed to go back upon it although 
it may have acted under a m,istake, subsequently discovered. 
The Commissioner 
of Police, Bombay 
v. Gordhandas 
Bhanji, [1952] S.C.R. 135, applied. 
Moreover, under r. 4(a) of the Rules the Government had 
ti

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