P. B. ROY versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 11-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. B. ROY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
F~bruary 11, 1972 
H9 
[S. M. S1KRI, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR 
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
. Civil Servant~llolding temporary post-Constitution of New service 
-'Departmental candidate' holding temporary post appointed to pernza. 
nent post but of a lower grade-If violative of Art, 311. 
The appo:llant was holding a temporary post of Editor in the Publi· 
cations DiVIsion of the Department of Information and Broadcasting. The 
teml"!rary post was sanctioned upto 28-2-1957. 
On 16-2-1959, tho 
PreS1dent of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to 
Art. 309 of the Constitution, promulgated the Central Information Ser-
vice Rules, 1959. These Rules were meant for the creation of a Cen· 
tral Information Service with prescribed grades and strengths. and entry 
into the service was open to departmental candidates according to r. S 
for the initial constitution of the service. The appellant was chosen by 
the Selection Col)lmittee and was posted as an Assistant Editor. He 
challenged the order, 
A single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition. 
On uppeal, 
in the course of arguments, the question arose whether the post of 
Editor was abolished or had ceased to exist and the respondent was 
allowed to file an affidavit stating that the post of Editor had ceased to 
exist. 
The Division Bench ·then held that there was no question of 
demotion or reduction in rank and hence that Art. 311 ·was not appli .. 
cable. 
In appeal to this . Court, it was held : 
(I) The additional affidavit filed by the respondent did not introduce 
anything new but only clarified the po;ition. [455 E] 
(a) There was nothing to show that the temporary post of Editor 
in which the appellant was initially appointed had been continued beyond 
28-2-1957 for any period. [455 CJ 
(b) The question whether the constitution of the Central Information 
Service involved fresh appointments to new posts or its effect was merely 
to transfer existing employees to corresponding posts with new desig11a-
tions was already before the court. [455 D-E] 
. 
( c) The appellant himself never ~sked for any opportunity to meet 
any allegation in the additional affidavit. [454 F-G] 
(2) ·There is nothing to indicate that on the face of the impu~ed . 
order, that the appellant had been demoted as a measure of purush-
ment. [455 F-GJ 
(3) It could not be held that the order, which had the effect of 
terminating an officiating appointme~t in which the. appellant. had i:io 
·right to continue-and which gave him a fresh appomtment wit~ a dif-
ferent designation, -Out 11trmanent tenure and prospects, constituted a 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972) 3 S.C.R. 
violation of either Art. 14 or 16, simply because the process which 
resulted in such an order did not have a similar effect upon the position 
or rights of any other person in the Department; especially when, after 
taking into account the appellant's individual case, the Selection Com· 
mittee recommended the maximum pay in the class and grade of the post 
given to him. [456 A·CJ 
(4) (a) The new rules had the effect of constituting a 11ew service 
with a fair and reasonable procedure for entry into it. 
Such a procedure 
could not be characterised as a device to defeat the provisions of Art. 311 
or a fraud upon the Constitution simply because the result of. subjection 
to the proeess of appraisement of the merits of each candidate may not 
meet the expectations of some candidates. [457 F-G] 
(b) Article 311 affords a reasonable opportunity to defend against 
threatened punishment to those already in GQvernment service. 
Rule 5 
of tho Central Information Service Rules provides a method of recruit· 
ro~nt or entry into a new service of persons who, even ,though they may 
have been serving the Government had no right to enter the newly 
constituted se\'Vice before going through tho procedure prescribed by the 
rule. The fields of operation of Art. 311 and r. 5 are quite different and 
'°istinct. [457 G·H; 458 A-Bl 
(c) The definition of 'departmental candidates' in r. 2(b) was meant 
only as an aid in interpreting r. 5 and was not intended to operate as 
a fetter on the functions and powers of the Selection Committee. It does 
not require that all persons falling within the definition of 'departmental 
candidate' should be placed in a single class. Under r. 5 the Selection 
Committee could assign different grades to the departmenta

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