R JAYAKUMARI AMMA Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from the judgment of Isaac, J., dismissing Original Petition No. 3956 of 1970 raises a question of law, which in the abstract may be stated to be whether the termination of the services of a person appointed to the Government service under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, will attract Art.311 of the Constitution. In the judgment under appeal, Isaac J., said that he had held in his own judgment in O. M. Mathew v. Special Tahsildar, Nedumkandom reported in 1973 KLT 272 that Art.311 will not be attracted in cases where the appointment was under R.9(a)(i) and the termination was of the service under such an appointment. On examination of the judgment in O. M. Mathew v. Special Tahsildar, Nedumkandom reported in 1973 KLT 272 it is clear that the learned Judge has not so held. A passage from Para.9 of the judgment is illuminative. We shall extract the whole of that paragraph:

(2.) In view of the above finding, the contention that Art.311 bad been violated could not be sustained because the termination of employment was not by way of punishment. So the decision in O. M. Mathew v. Special Tahsildar, Nedumkandom reported in 1973 KLT 272 is not an authority for the position that the termination of employment under R.9(a)(i) will not attract Art.311.

(3.) The decision of one of us in T. C. Govindan v. Inspector of Post Offices, Thiruvalla reported in 1967 KLT 373 was cited before the learned Judge and reference was made to this decision in the judgment in O. M. Mathew v. Special Tahsildar, Nedumkandom reported in 1973 KLT 272. This is what the learned Judge said: