SATISH CHANDRA ANAND versus THE UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 13-03-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

8.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
655 
feel called upon to deprive other persons of their 
persoi;ial liberty in the discharge ·of what they 
conceive to be then· duty, must strictly and scrupu-
lously observe the forms and rules of the law. 
That 
. has not been done in this case. 
The petitioners now 
before us are therefore entitled to be released and 
they are set at liberty forthwith. 
' 
Petition allowed. 
Agent for the petitioner: Ganpat Rai. 
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyakshri. 
SATISH CHANDHA ANAND 
v. 
THE UNION OF iNDIA. 
(PATANJALI SASTRI 0.J.,'MUKHEHJEA, VIVIAN BOSE, 
GHULA~I HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1050, Arts. 14, 16, 311- Civil servant-
Appointment on contract for 5 years-Continuation of appointment 
on temporary service basis-Tarrnination of service on one month's 
notice-Legality·- Fundamental 
rights-Central Civil 
Services 
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, r. fi. 
The petitioner was employed by the Government of India on . 
a five year contract in the Resettlement and Employment Direc-
torate of the Ministry of Labour. When bis contract was due to 
expire the Government made him a n.ew offer to 
continu~ him ~n 
service in his post temporarily for the period of the Resettlement 
and Employment Organisation on the condition that he will be 
governed by the Central Ciyil Services (Temporary Service) 
Rules, 1949, which provided for termination of the contract by one 
month's notice on either side. He accepted \be offer and continued 
in service, but subsequently his services were terminated after 
giving him one month's notice. The- petitioner applied for reiief 
under Art. 32 (1) of the Constitution alleging Iba\ his funda-
mental rights under Arts. 311, 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution 
were infringed: 
Held, (i) that Art. 311 bad no application as this was not a 
case of dismissal or removal from service nor a reduction in rank 
but only an ordinary case of a contract being terminated by notice 
under one of its clauses,· the difference between dismiesal and 
1968 
Rani Narayan. 
Singh 
v • 
Th• Stat• of 
Delhi 
and Othsr3. 
Patanja.lS 
Sa~tl'i 0. I. 
1968 
Mar•k la 
-656 
SUPREME COURT REPOHTS 
[1953) 
1968 
removal being that the former ordinarily disqualifies from future 
employment but not the latter; 
Batish Chandra 
(ii) Art. 14 had no application as he bad not been discrimin-
Anand 
ated against and had not been denied the protection of any laws 
v, 
which others similarly situated could claim ; 
The Union of 
(iii) Art. 16 was equally inapplicable as the petitioner was 
India 
not denied equal opportunity in a matter relating to appointment 
or employment but had been treated just like any other person 
to whom an offer of temporary· _employment under these condi-
tions was made. 
The State can enter into contracts of temporary employment 
and impose special terms in each case, provided they are not in-
consistent with the Constitution, and those who choose to accept 
those terms and enter into the contract are bound by them, even 
as the State is bound. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition (No. 201of1952) 
under Art. 32 of Lhe Oomtitution for the enforce-
ment of fundamental rights. 
R. K. Varma and G. 0. Mrithur for the petitioner. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (Por1is 
A. Mehta, with him) for th·~ -respondent. 
1953. March 13. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BosE J.-'l'his is a petition under article 32 of the 
Constitution in which the petitioner seeks redress 
for what, according to bim, is a breach of bis funda-
mental rights under articles 14 aud 16(1) of the Con-
stitution. It was argued at considerable length by the 
petitioner in person. 
Then, wben our judgment was 
nearly ready, he put in a petition asking for a rehear-
ing aud for permission to file some fresh paper,;. 
Wben that was refused be came again on another day 
and asked for leave to engage an agent and appear 
through counsel as he felt he bad not been able tO do 
justice to bis case in person. (It may be mentioned 
that tbougb he had originally engaged an agent he 
dismissed him before the bearing when he appeared 
in person.) 
vVe granted bis request and counsel ro-
argued the case for him but has not carried the matter 
any funher. The facts are these .• 
, 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
657 
In October, 1945, the petitioner was employed by 
1968 
the Government of India on a five year contract in 
. -
. 
the Directorate· General of Resettlement and Em

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