UNION OF INDIA Vs. N N SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second Appeal directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge decreeing the Suit of the plaintiff-respondent. The said respondent had been employed as a Demonstrator in the Delhi College of Engineering. His services were terminated by an order dated 30th January, 1969, passed under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. This order was by way of a notice informing the plaintiff that his services would be terminated with effect from the expiry of one month from the date on which the notice is served or tendered. Accordingly, the services of the plaintiff stood terminated on 28th February, 1969. The plaintiff had claimed that the services were terminated illegally, arbitrarily and mala fide, and also, attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The written statement filed by the defendants took up the stand that the post to which the plaintiff was appointed was under the lien of Shri A. K. Srivastava, who was appointed to the post of Associate Lecturer. It was alleged that once the post of Associate Lecturer was created, the Demonstrator's post got abolished, and thus, the service* of the plaintiff got terminated. One other point taken was whether the plaintiff did or did not become quasi permanent under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.

(2.) In any case, the Suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but in appeal the Additional District Judge held that it had not been established that the post of Demonstrator had been abolished by the simultaneous creation of the post of Associate Lecturer. It was also found that Shri A. K. Srivastava became an Associate Lecturer on 28th February, 1968, whereas the plaintiff continued till 28th February, 1969. In other words, the plaintiff out-lasted the abolition of the post by about one year. From the various facts and circumstances, the Court inferred that the abolition of the postwar not the ground on which the services of the plaintiff had been terminated. It was eventually held on an analysis of the facts as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel contends that the conclusion that the order is passed arbitrarily by way of punishment is not based on evidence, and therefore, it can be attacked On the other hand, an analysis of the grounds of appeal shows that five substantial grounds of appeal are mentioned therein and none of them is connected with any mis-reading of the evidence or absence of material in the findings