STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS versus RAJINDRA SAREEN

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 22-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

452 
STATE OF HA~YANA AND OTIIERS 
v. 
~JINDRA SAREEN 
November 22, 1971 
re. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
Punjab Public Relations Department (Gazetted) Service Rules 1958-
Post of Deputy Director (Press) held for more than three years without 
order of ternzination of probation being passed-Post ht'ld in officiating 
capacity-Proviso to Rule 10(3) does not apply. 
Civil Service-Appointment made co~terminus with post-Termination 
of appointment while post continues attracts Art. 311 (2) of Constitution. 
Mala fides-,Several incidents cited to show mala fides-Cumulative 
effect of all a/legations must be seen-Considerin11 each incident by itself 
not proper. 
The respondent joined the service of the compo•ile State of Punjab 
and Haryana on June 22, 1957 as the State's Press Liaison Officer at Delhi 
in the Public Relations Department of the State. The original appointmen~ 
was lo last till February 28, 1958 but was continued by orders passed from 
time to time. 
The respondent went on leave for aboul six months 
fro1n 
November 21, 1959 to May 18, 1960 with permission to act in Pakistan 
as a Special Correspondent of The Hindustan Times Delhi. 
On return 
from lea>·e he was posted in the same service in the post of Deputy Director 
(Field) from July 19, 1960 to September 19, 1960. 
Later on he was 
again posted as Officer on Special Duty which was also an equivalent post, 
from September 20, 1960 to June 26, 1962. 
When he crossed the effi-
ciency bar in 1960 his salary was raised with effect from December 24, 
1960. 
He was appointed as Deputy Director (Press) which post was held 
by him from June 27, 1962 to June 14, 19'66. 
By order dated June 24, 
I 966 the Governor of Punjab appointed him as State Pres3 Liaison Officer 
with effect from June 14, 1966 and he was posted to Delhi. 
This post 
had been kept in abeyance cluring .the period when he was Deputy Director 
(Press). On the reorganisation of the composite State of Punjab and ita 
bifurcation into the States of Punjab and Haryana the post of State Press 
Liaison Officer. Delhi, held by him was allocated to the State of Haryana 
with effect from November I, I 966. 
He was also allotted to the State 
of Haryana. 
He remained -on deputation with the Punjab 
Government 
from December 1, 1966 to March 24, 1967 and again resumed his duty 
as State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, from March 25, 1967 under 
the Government of Haryana. By order dated October 31, 
1968 the 
Haryana Government terminated his 
services. 
The 
respondent filed a 
writ petition in the High Court. The High Court rejected the plea of 
ma/a {ides raised by the respondent but allowed the writ petition holding 
in the respondent's favour that (a) under Rule 10(3) of the Gazetted 
Service Rules the respondent on completing three years service as Deputy 
Director (Press) had become a permanent employee of the Govcrnni.ent: 
(b) the appointment of the respondent to the post of State Press Liaison 
Officer waS co-terminus with the existence of the post and the respondent 
was entitled to continue in the post while it was in existence i.e. 
up to 
Februarv 28, 1969. On the above grounds the High Court quashed the 
order dated October 31 1968. Following the High Court's order the State 
Government re-instated' the appellant but filed an appeal in this 
Court 
challenging the High Court's judgment: Apart from the merits, the Court 
A 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HARYANA v. R. SAREEN 
453 
had to consider the preliminary objection of the respondent to the effect 
that in view of the fact that the respondent had been re-instated in service 
the question of the validity of the original 
order pa;sed on October 31, 
1968 terminating the services of the respondent, did not survive for con-
sideration. 
HELD : 
(i) The circumstance that the respondent was re-instated in 
;ervice by the order dated December 5, 1969 could not and does not debar 
the State from challenging the judgment of the Hign Court. 
In fact im-
mediately aftec passing the order dated December 5. i 969. the State had 
been taking very active steps to challenge the decision ot the High Court. 
It followed that the State was entitled in the present appeal to challenge the 
decision of the High Court setting aside the order dated October 31, 1968. 
The preliminary objection must accordingly be over-ruled. [457 D-E] 
(ii) The ap11.roach of the High Court in considering the allegation of 
·ma/a fides was not prop

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