STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus PJ. KAMPAVAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 28-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--( 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
PJ. KAMPAVAT AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 1992 
{MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
B, 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 310--Contractual appointments-Ministers' establishment--
Temporary appointment on the recommendation of Ministers-Power of State c' 
.,._ 
to make such appointmenti-Source of. 
-r 
-
Civil Services: 
Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959: Rules 2, 9(56), 33. 
Temporary appointments-Co-terminus with the term of Mini-
sters-Wliether incumbents entitled for absorption-Termination Order-Prior 
notice-Whether necessary. 
D 
The respondents were appointed in the State Government Service 
purely on temporary basis, co-terminus with the tenure of the Chief Minister E 
and Ministers, with no right of absorption. They also furnished undertaking 
to this effect. With the change in Government, the respondents were issued 
orders· of termination. They filed Writ Petitions before the High Court 
challenging the termination orders and claiming that they were entitled to be 
absorbed in service. The High Court granted stay and directed that status 
quo be maintained and the respondents continued in service. The High F 
Court was of the opinion that they were entitled to the protection of Rule 
33(1)(b) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules and since termination was or-
dered without complying with the requirements of the said rule the termina-
tion order were null and void. It however ruled out the question of 
absorption. However, taking an overall view of the matter, the High Court 
directed that in lieu of reinstatement, they may be paid salary from the date G 
of termination till the date of judgment and for a further period of two 
months - that is in all for a period of two years. Aggrieved against the said 
judgment, the State Government has preferred the present appeals by spe-
cial leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
845 
H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. The appointment of the respondents was a pure and~ 
simple contractual appointment and that such appointment is outside the 
purview of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Since ~e tenure of the 
ministers at whose instance and on whose recommendation they were 
appointed has come. to an end, their service also came to an end simul-
B taneously. No order of tennination as such was necessary for putting an )--
end to their service, much less a prior notice. They ought to go out in the 
manner they have come in. (853-C, D] 
. 2. It is evident from a reading of the order of appointment that it 
was purely a contractual appointment co-terminus with the tenure of the 
....._
C Ministers at whose choice and instance they were appointed. The order 
~ 
expressly stated that they shall not get any right to appointment in regular 
cadre. Their services were, it was expressly statt:d, liable to be terminated-"(' 
at any time without giving any notice and/or without assigning any reason. 
Indeed, they were asked to furnish undertakings in the above terms which 
D they did. The order no doubt employs the words 'appointed as direct 
recruits on purely temporary basis'. However, the order must be read as 
a whole and so read, it is clear that the appointment of the respondent was 
made otherwise than in accordance with the rules, at the choice and on the 
recommendation of the concerned Minister who wanted tl~em to serve in 
his e~~blishment. That the State has the power to make such contractual 
E appointment is recognised by clause (2) of Article 310. (849 H, 850 A-CJ '-"""'( 
F 
3. Rules 9(56) and 33 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules have no 
application to the instant case as the respondents cannot be deemed to be 
temporary Government servants within the meaning of the said rules 
inasmuch,.as U•e terms of their appointment clearly amount to an other-
wise provision within the meaning of the Non-obstante clause (ftexcept 
where it is otherwise expressed or impliedft) with which rule 2 begins. It is 
evident that 'the terms of their appointment and the undertaking are 
cl~ly inconsistent with the said rules and in particular with rule 33. Rule 
3~(1)(1;») ar,id the term making their tenure co-terminus with their minister 
G cannot go together. [853 B-FJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1826-37 
of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1991 of the Gujarat High 
H Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 8627 to 8633 of 1989, 8635 to 8638 
,STA"(E OF GUJARAT v. PJ. KAMPAV

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