RADHAKANT JHA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant was working as a Teacher-Instructor in the Teachers Training Wings Reformatory School, Hazaribagh, Bihar. He was an employee of the Government of Bihar. In 1959, he answered an advertisement and was selected for appointment as Instructor (Cane and Bamboo Works) by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The order of appointment was with effect from October 9, 1959. He continued to work in that post till 1966 when he was appointed as officiating Extension Officer (Industries) by the Development Commissioner, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. According to the respondents, the work of the appellant as an Extension Officer (Industries) was not found to be satisfactory and therefore by an order dated May 11, 1971 his services were terminated 'with effect from July 25, 1967. The appellant questioned the order of termination of service in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court held that the order was in order in so far as it operated for the future but was inoperative in so far as it purported to be retrospective. The view of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench. The appellant had preferred the present appeal under Art. 136. This appeal was originally heard by Venkataramiah and Thakkar, JJ. who directed that the appellant should be paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in full settlement of all his claims in addition to whatever had already been directed to be paid to him under the decree of Civil Court, Calcutta, in Money Suit No. 72/76. However, the order of the court was set aside on an application for review filed by the appellant. The appeal has now been heard again by us. At the conclusion of the hearing we adjourned the case to enable the learned counsel for the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to seek instructions whether the matter could not be settled amicably. As that has not been possible, we now proceed to pronounce our judgment.

(3.) It appears that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration wanted to treat the appellant as if he was on deputation from the Government of Bihar and, so, directed him to report for duty to the Bihar Government on being relieved by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. When the appellant so reported for duty he was informed that he was no longer in the service of Government of Bihar as his lien had been long since terminated on his joining the service of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. There can, of course, be no question of the appellant having been sent on deputation. He applied for the post of Instructor under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration he was selected for appointment and appointed as Instructor. At no time was there any question of his having been sent out on deputation. While he was holding the post of Instructor he was appointed as Extension Officer. He was found unsuitable to hold the post. If he was found unsuitable for that post, the proper thing to do was to revert him to the post which he was holding before he was appointed as an Extension Officer that is to the post of Instructor. Instead of that his services were straightway terminated. We think that it was not right that the services of the appellant should have been terminated in that fashion. He was entitled to be reverted to the post which he was previously holding. In that view, the order terminating the service of the appellant is quashed.