(1.) This Civil Writ has come up now before us on remand by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner, Col. J. N. Sinha, was appointed as Extra-Assistant Superintendent in the Survey of India Service on 14th November, 1938 on probation. After the completion of his probation for a period of three years, he was confirmed in that post in 1941. During the Second World War, he volunteered fur active service in the Army, and was granted Emergency Commission in the Army with effect from 23rd October, 1942. Subsequently, he qualified himself for Regular Commission and was granted Regular Commission in the Army with effect from 23rd October, 1942. Rule 2 of Survey of India (Recruitment from Corps of Engineering Officers) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "1950 Rules"), provides for the recruitment of Military Officers to the Survey of India Class I Service, and Rule 3 provides that the recruited officers will be on probation for two years which may be extended by the Government on the advice of the Surveyor-General. The petitioner was taken into the Survey of India Class I Service under the aforesaid Rule 2 as Deputy Superintending Surveyor with effect from 1st June, 1951. In 1960, the President of India, in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 300 of the Constitution, made the Survey of India Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "1960 Rules") for regulating the recruitment to the Survey of India Class I Service. The said Rules Come into force on 1st July, 1960. The petitioner was subsequently promoted firstly as Superintending Surveyor and, after sometime, as Deputy Director. Later on, he was promoted as Director and, after sometime, as Director (Selection Grade) with effect from 27th October, 1966.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the Union Public Service Commission Departmental Promotion Committee met in May, 1966 and prepared a select panel for appointment to the post of Surveyor-General which had fallen vacant on the retirement of one Brig. Gambhir Singh, and the Departmental Promotion Committee placed respondent No. 2, Brig J. S. Paintal, at serial No. 1 in the said Panel, while it placed the petitioner who was junior to respondent No. 2 in service at serial No. 2 in the Panel. Respondent No. 2 was accordingly appointed as Surveyor-General in June, 1966 in officiating capacity. The petitioner alleged in his writ petition that immediately after respondent No. 2 took over as the Surveyor-General, he started showing bias and hostility against the petitioner, and the petitioner set out various circumstances which according to him, constitued the reasons for the alleged bias and hostility of respondent No. 2 against him. The petitioner further alleged in his writ petition that in June. 1969, due to the existence of chaotic conditions in the Survey of India Department, the then Minister of State for Education visited the Survey of India Department, Dehra Dun and made personal enquiries from various officers, that in the Survey of India Department there was a civil Class I Others Association, and the said Association presented a memorandum to the Minister of State, representing, inter alia, that a certain number of Military Officers of Military Cadre in the Senior Selection appointments of Directors and Deputy Directors in the Survey of India should be sent back to the Army to make place upto 50% quota for the Civilian Officers, that the Military Officers in the Survey of India (including the petitioner) were not allowed to form any association according to the Army Regulations, and in the absence of such an association the Military Officers could not represent then case to the Minister of State, that the petitioner had reason to believe that immediately after the Minister returned from Dehra Dun to Delhi on or about 20th June, 1969, a letter was issued by Shri Chandira- mani, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Education, to the Ministry of Defence that about five Senior Military Officers including the petitioner and respondent No. 2 should be permanently reverted to the Army under Rule 4(e) of the 1950 Rules, and that the petitioner had also reason to believe that the Ministry of Defence was reluctant to take back any of the officers under the said Rules as it would have meant a stigma against the said officers, b .cause under the Rules they could be reverted to Military duty only for unsatisfactory work or conduct in the Survey of India, there being no reduction in the establishment in the Survey of India. In May 1969, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an Office Memorandum No. 20/22/68-Estt. (D), dated 6th May 1969 and the same was circulated by the Ministry of Education by a letter, dated 27th May, 1969 wherein it was stated, inter alia, that inefficient officers should be weeded out in accordance with the Rules, that the action should be taken under Fundamental Rule 56(j) in order to weed out inefficient officers after it is considered that further retention of the Government servant concerned will not be in the public intrest. On 17th May 1969, Fundamental Rule 56(j) was amended, and on 13th August, 1969, the Ministry of Education and Youth Services issued a Memorandum (Annexure 'K') stating that the President of India was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner, that in pursuance of the amended clause (j) of Fundamentar Rule 56 the President was pleased to decide that the petitioner should retire from Government service with effect from 14th August, 1969, and that the petitioner should be given thres months' pay and allowances in lieu of three months' notice provided in the said Rule. Aggrieved by the said order (Annexure 'K'), the petitioner filed writ petition No. 746 of 1969 in this Court praying that the said order (Annexure 'K.') may be quashed.
(3.) At the hearing of the writ petition, six contentions were urged on behalf of the petitioner. They were :