KSHAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us was an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, and the 14th of December, 1961 was the date on which he would have normally retired after attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with the determination in regard to his real date of birth. But by an Official Memorandum of the 14th of August, 1958, it was provided that in all cases in which there was a review of the date of birth given by a Government servant, and some other date was determined to be the real date of birth, extension of service equal to half the period of difference between the date of birth as originally indicated in the government records and the revised date of birth should be granted if the government servant was physically fit and had a satisfactory record of service. On the 13th of December 1961, Government made an order under the provisions of this official memorandum that the petitioner's services should be extended for 11 months and 20 days from the 14th of December 1961. In consequence of this notification, petitioner continued in service even after the 13th of December 1961, and the 4th of December 1962 would have been the date on which he would have retired after the expiry of the period during which his services had been extended. But within about a fortnight after the extended period of service commenced, government issued a second notification recalling with immediate effect the previous notification by which the petitioner's services had been extended. This notification was issued on the 26th of December 1961. In consequence the petitioner was relieved from his post on the 4th of January 1962.

(2.) Mr. Srinivasa Rao appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted before us that once the petitioner's service, was extended under the provisions of the official memorandum of the 14th of August, 1958, it was impossible for the government to terminate the petitioner's services except under the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 after affording him the two opportunities as directed by Article 311 of the Constitution, It has been pointed out to us that in the second notification issued by the government on the 26th of December, 1961, no reason has been assigned for revoking the previous notification issued by which petitioner's service was extended and that that being so, this is a case in which we should quash the second notification which was issued without the authority of law.

(3.) Mr. Government Pleader has explained to us that the real reason why the first notification was revoked was that although the government was satisfied when the first notification was issued that the petitioner's record of service was satisfactory and this conclusion was reached on the materials which the government had then before it, it was subsequently discovered that there were facts and circumstances which justified the view that the petitioner's record of service was not as satisfactory as it was supposed to be. Mr. Government Pleader has made available to us the relevant communication addressed to the Advocate General by a Secretary to the Government in which it is stated that this was the reason for the revocation of the first notification.