H LYNGDOH Vs. CROMLYN LYNGDOH JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question in this Appeal which is against the Judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland by special leave is whether the Respondent's services as Judge District Council Court of the Autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills could be terminated by the District Council. The facts relevant for the appeal are that on the 26th January, 1950 the Autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills by virtue of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 244 and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India was constituted and the Governor of Assam was empowered to administer the said Autonomous District, pursuant thereto the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 were enforced as from the 15th October, 1951. On the 27th June l952 a District Council and an Executive Committee was constituted for the said autonomous District. The District Council was empowered to constitute Courts and appoint suitable persons as Presiding Officers. On 7th June, 1954 United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules 1953 were framed by the District Council with the approval of the Governor. Rule 9 of which reads as follows:-

(2.) It is admitted that no rules were made by the District Council under Rule 15 of the Constitution of District Councils Rules which empowered it to regulate conditions of service of Officers and staff appointed to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the District Council. In the absence of these rules it is also admitted that the Assam Fundamental Rules subsidiary Rules and instructions were applicable to the Officers and staff of the District Council.

(3.) The Respondent who was an Additional District Judge in the senior grade of the Assam Judicial service was appointed with effect from 7-1-1954 temporarily as a Judge of the District Council without the approval of the Governor. The Governor however appointed him also as an Additional District Judge Lower Assam District for the purpose of disposal of Civil and Criminal matters under the respective Codes. On 16-2-1957 the Respondent attained the age of superannuation which was on his completion of 55 years. It would however appear that notwithstanding his having reached the age of superannuation the District Council continued him in service and by its order dated 22-4-1965 placed him in the Regular scale of Rs. 1200-60 (EB) -60-1500 with effect from 1-4-l965. Thereafter on 30-7-1966 the Executive Committee of the District Council served notice upon him that his services along with the services of others mentioned in the order were terminated from 31st August, 1966. It is this impugned order that was challenged in a Writ Petition which the Respondents filed in the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that unless the contrary is shown that the respondent was appointed by the District Council with the approval of the Governor while the termination was by the Council without the approval of the Governor, though we observe that even with respect to this nothing contrary was shown that the Governor had not given his approval.