K S SRINIVASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 1, 1946, Shri K. S. Srinivasan, appellant before us, was appointed to a post of Liaison Officer, All India Radio, on a pay of Rs. 350 per month in the scale of Rs. 350-20-450-25/2-550. The appointment was made on the recommendation of the then Federal Public Service Commission, and the advertisement or memorandum of information for candidates, as it is more properly called, issued by the Public Service Commission when calling for applications for the said post, related to the recruitment for nine posts of Listeners' Research Officers and nine posts of Liaison Officers, All Indian Radio. It was stated in the said memorandum that the posts were permanent and pensionable, but would be filled on a temporary basis; the memorandum further stated that if the persons concerned were retained in service and confirmed in the posts, they would be allowed pensionary benefits and would also be eligible to contribute to the General Provident Fund. In the first instance the appointments were made on probation for six months subject to termination on certain conditions mentioned in para 4 of the memorandum, which need not be set out at this stage. The duties of a Liaison Officer were stated in para 5 of the memorandum, the main duty being to organise and conduct publicity for the programmes and other activities of a Radio Station. The designation Liaison Officer was later changed to Public Relations Officer, and along with other posts of Listener Research Officer and Assistant Station Director, the posts of Public Relations Officers were upgraded to Rs. 450-25-500-30-800 with effect from January 1, 1947. On May 23, 1952, the Director General, All India Radio, passed an order bearing No. 2 (1) A/50 in which it was stated that whereas the appellant had been in continuous Government service for more than three years and a declaration had been issued to him in pursuance of Rr. 3 and 4 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, and whereas an appointment to the post of Public Relations Officer was required to be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission and their concurrence to the appointment had been obtained, the appellant was appointed to the Public Relations Officer's grade in a quasi-permanent capacity with effect from May 1, 1949. On September 3, 1952, however, the appellant received an order from the said Director-General in which it was stated that his services would not be required after October 6, 1952. The appellant was naturally taken by surprise on receipt of this order and made a representation on September 8, 1952, in which he stated that as a quasi-permanent Public Relations Officer he had a claim to an alternative post in the same grade, so long as any post in the same grade was held by a Government servant not in permanent or quasipermanent service. On September 13, 1952, the appellant was informed by means of an order that he was appointed to officiate as Assistant Station Director, Madras (the appellant was then working as Public Relations Officer. All India Radio, Madras) in a purely temporary capacity until further orders. On September 19, 1952, the appellant was informed that his representation dated September 8, 1952, was under consideration and a suggestion was made that in the meantime he should apply for one of the posts of Assistant Station Directors which had been advertised by the Union Public Service Commission. Then, on October 4, 1952, the appellant submitted a further representation in which he said that under the rules in question, namely the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, he was entitled to be retained in service in a post of the same grade and under the same appointing authority; and it was, therefore, not necessary that he should be re-selected for the post of Assistant Station Director by the Union Public Service Commission. In the concluding paragraph of his representation the appellant stated that in deference to the suggestion made in the letter of the Director-General dated September 19, 1952, he was enclosing an application to the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Station Director and if, after due consideration, the Director-General decided that the appellant should apply for the post of Assistant Station Director, his application should be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission. While Government was considering the representation of the appellant, the Union Public Service Commission interviewed in March, 1953, candidates for the posts of Assistant Station Directors. The appellant appeared before the commission on March 26, 1953. On April 18, 1953, the appellant was informed that the Union Public Service Commission had not selected him and the appellant was again informed that "it was not possible to continue him in service". The appellant made fresh representations to the effect that the order purporting to terminate him service on the ground that the Union Public Service Commission had not selected him for the post of Assistant Station Director, was an illegal order inasmuch as the appellant held a quasi-permanent status and was entitled to hold a post in the grade of Assistant Station Directors, as long as anyone not in permanent or quasi-permanent service continued to hold such a post. To these representations the appellant received a reply to the effect that Government had decided to keep in abeyance the post of Public Relations Officer held by him and therefore it was not possible to retain him in that post and the appellant was given an opportunity to show cause why his service should not be terminated on the expiry of the period of notice with effect from July 18, 1953. A reply was asked for within 15 days. In reply, the appellant again pointed on that having been given a quasi-permanent status he was entitled to be retained in service under the rules governing Government servants holding such status, and the termination of his service would be in violation of Art. 311 of the constitution. On July 3, 1953, the appellant received a memorandum dated June 9, 1953. This memorandum said :

(2.) On July 10, 1953, the appellant made a fresh representation, this time to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, in which he repeated his former objections and contended that the proposed termination of his service was irregular, unjust and illegal. He submitted that the order terminating his service was in contravention of Art. 311 of the Constitution and he further said that "though the posts of Public Relations Officer and Assistant Station Director were not declared to be in the same cadre, there can be no dispute that the posts are in the same grade". On August 17, 1953, the appellant received a memorandum to the effect that the notice of the termination of his service as Assistant Station Director dated April 18, 1953, as subsequently amended by corrigenda dated May 12, 1953, and July 3, 1953, was withdrawn, and it also stated that the notice dated May 26, 1953, asking the appellant to show cause why his service should not be terminated was cancelled. This was followed by an order dated December, 14, 1953. This order has an important bearing on the points urged before us and must be quoted in full :

(3.) A copy of the order was also sent to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission. Unfortunately, the appellant soon found that his troubles did not end with the order dated December 14, 1953. On August 31, 1955, the appellant was informed by the then Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, that the Union Public Service Commission had objected to his appointment as Assistant Station Director, holding that such appointment was contrary to the regulations; the appellant was then asked that he should relinquish the post of Assistant Station Director and accept a temporary post of Assistant Information Officer in the Press Information Bureau or, in the alternative, he should "clear out". It may be stated here that the post of Assistant Information Officer offered to the appellant carried a scale of pay lower than that of an Assistant Station Director, namely, Rs. 350-25-500-30-620. As this new offer deprived the appellant of his quasi-permanent status and also amounted to a reduction in his rank, the appellant immediately sent fresh representations to the Home Ministry, Director-General, and the Minister for Information and Broadcasting. On September 7, 1955, the appellant received the final order of Government, which is the order complained of in the present appeal. That order was in these terms :