STATE OF PUNJAB versus JAGDIP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 19-09-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Babula/ 
v. 
State of U ttar 
Pradesh & others. 
Shah, /. 
1963 
September 19 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
tionally giving false evidence in any stage of judicial pro-
ceeding. 
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No order 
as to costs. 
Appeal diJmissed. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
JAGDIP SINGH & ORS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. W ANcHoo, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311 (2)-Appointment of 
Tahshildars-No substantive vacancies-Creation of supernumerary 
poSts-States 
reorganisation-''Deconfirmation" 
by 
successor 
State-If violates Art. 311(2) or s. 116 of the States Re-organisa-
tion Act (37 of 1956). 
The respondents who were officiating Tahsildars in the former 
State of PEPSU were confirmed as 
Tahsildars by a Notification 
issued by the 
Financial Con1n1issioner. No posts were available 
at that ti111e in \vhich the respondents could be confirmed. 
The 
next da;i the Rajpramukh sanctioned 
the creation of 
supernu~ 
merary posts of 'Tahsildars to provide liens for the 
respon<lents 
who had been confirmed under the notification. Thereafter, State::> 
Re-organisation took place an<l PEPSU merged \.Vith the State of 
Punjab. The Punjab Govern1nent subsequently, 
by a notification 
"de-confirn1ed" the respondents. 
The respondents challenged this 
notification by \Vay of \Vrit petitions before the Punjab High Court 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The grounds on 
which the 
challenge was 111ade were ( 1) the action of the Government amoun·· 
ted to a reduction in rank and it constituted a violation of Art. 
311(2) of the Constitution and (2) it constituted a violation of the 
protection given to the 
respondents under s. 
116 of the 
States 
Re-organisation Act, 1956. 
The single Bench allowed the 
writ 
petition and after appealing to a Division Bench without· success 
the State of Punjab appealed to this Court on special leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the State that (1) the order 
made by· the PEPSU Government confirming the respondents was 
in total disregard of the Punjab Tahsildari Rules and, therefore, 
-
-
-
-
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
965 
the successor Government was well within its rights to rectify 
the mistake comn1itted by the predecessor Government; (2) Arti-
cle 311 of the Constitution has no application in a case where the 
Government reduces the rank of a Government servant without any 
reference to his conduct but only for the reason that the previous 
order was contrary to the rules; and (3) assuming that the earlier 
order was good, it is always open to the GoYernment to abolish 
posts and such an action is not justiciable under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution, as it does not violate any statutory provision. 
Held: (per P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, N. Raja-
gopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudho!kar, JJ. Subba Rao ). dis-
senting), (i) Had there been any substantive vacancies, actual 
or anticipated, there \Vould have been no occasion to create super-
numerary posts. 
Therefore, it must follow 
that 
the order of 
Financial 
Con1missioner 
had 
no legal foundation~ there 
being 
no vacancies in v.rhich the confirmations could take place. 
His 
order therefore, conhrn1ing the respondents as permanent 
Tah-
sildars must be held to be wholly void. 
(ii) The order of the Rajpramukh does not appoint the res-
pondents as perrn;:tnent Tahsildars but only mentions the fact of 
the confirn1ation of the respondents and others. 
Therefore, the 
creation of supernun1erary posts 
appears to be an afterthought 
an_d is of no avail as a means of validating the origin2l order of 
confirmation. 
(iii) \Vhen an or<ler is voi<l on the ground that the avthority 
which made it had no po\Ver to make it, it cannot give rise to any legal 
rights. Where a Government servant has no right to a post or to 
a particular status, though an authority under the 
(}overnment 
acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person 
a status which it was not entitled to give, he \vill not in lavv be 
deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the 
particular status. 
Therefore, the Government notification "de-con-
firming" the respondents should be interpreted to mean that the 
Government did not accept the validity of the confirmation of 
the respondents. 
(iv) Even though upon their allocation to the State of Pun-
jab they were sho\vn as confirmed Tahsildars, they could not in 
law be regarded as ho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.