S. P. VASUDEVA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 08-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
184 
S. P. VASUDEVA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
October 8, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Art. 3 ! !-Appoi11111~cnt on "ad hoc basis" against 
a tenure post-Reversion to the parelll office on the ground of unsuitability 
for the post-Order of reversion not mea/lf as a measure of punfshment. 
The appellant, an Assistant in the P.W.D. office was appointed on 10-2-72 
against a tenure. post of a Legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Com-
missioner, Kamal on an "ad hoc'' basis. 
Finding him unsuitable to the post, 
on an assessment of his work, he was reverted to his parent office on 27-4-f"/2. 
The order of reversion was challenged as violative of Art. 311 of the Consti• 
tution by a Writ Petition. which was dismissed "in limine". 
On an appeal by special leave. the Court 
HELD ·. (i) Whether the appointment, was "ad hoc" or temporary the 
appellant had no right to the post from which he was reverted. 
[186F] 
(ii) The order was not meant as a measure of punishment as it was passed 
on the ground of unsuitability to the post. [186 G] . 
(iii) Where an order of reversion, of a person who had no right to the 
post does not show "ex-facie" that he was being reverted as a measure of 
punishment or does1 not cast any stigma on him, the courts will not normally go 
behind that order to see, if there were any motivating factors behind that 
order. 
[i87 DJ 
OBITER : 
E 
The theory whether the reversion to a lower post, of a probationer in a 
higher· post or the discharge of a probationer the temporary servant, was 
meant as a punishment leads to a very peculiar situation and the whole posi• 
tion in Jaw is rather confusing. It is time that the whole question was consi-
dered "de nova" and it would be better for . all concerned to avoid litigation 
if it should be held that the reversion of a probationer from a higher to a 
lower post or the discharge of a probationer. or the discharge from service 
of' a temporary servant cannot be questioned except on the basis of "ma/a 
F 
fide'' in the making of the order. 
[187 F-G, 188 B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 640 of 1973 .• 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
21st July 1972 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 
1454 of 1972. 
.. 
•· 
. " 
G 
C. K. Daphtary, N. H. Hingorani and Mrs. K. Hingorani for the 
,. .,j 
Appellant. 
" 
, 
M. C. Bhandare, R. N. Sachthey and M. N. ShroJ] for 
Respon-
dents Nos. 1-6 and 8-11. 
, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. 
This 'is an appeal against the 
judgment of 
the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing in limine the appellant's 
writ petition for quashing an order reverting him from the 
post of 
Legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamal to 
j 
,, . 
s. p, VASUDEVA v. HARYANA (Alagiriswami, J.) 
185 
his parent office. 
The appellant was working originally as an Assis-
tant in the office of the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Irrigation Branch, 
Haryana at Chandigarh. 
On 8th October 1971 the Legal Remem-
brancer and Secretary to Government, Legislative Department, Har-
yana wrote a letter to all administrative departments and Heads of 
Departments in the State informing them that it had been decided to 
fill in some posts in the Law Department by selection of qualified can-
didates from amongst the Government servants 
working in · other 
departments and that for the present the tenure of those posts was 
one year only and the candidates would be appointed on an ad hoc 
basis. 
In pursuance of that letter the appellant applied for the post 
and he was appointed on 10th February 1972 as Legal Assistant on 
ad hoc basis in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar. 
He 
was transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamal on 
February 17, 1972. 
As already stated, he was reverted to his parent 
office on the 27th of April, 1972. 
To the writ petition questioning his reversion he impleaded 
the 
following as parties : 
1. State of Haryana through the Legal Remembrancer 
and Secretary to Government, Law and Legislative 
Department. 
2. ·The Secretary to Government 
of Haryana, 
Local 
Government Department. 
3. The Advocate General of Haryana. 
4. The Deputy Advocate General of Haryana. 
5. The District Attorney, Kamal. 
6. Mr. G. L. Nanda, M.P. and Chairman, . Kurukshetra 
Development Board. 
7. The Secretary, Kurukshetra Development Board. 
8. Mr. Pritam

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