P KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of the appropriate writ to call for the records leading to Ext. P. 4 order and for quashing the same. The petitioner P. Kunhikrishnan Nair was a Panchayat Assistant of the Naripetta Panchayat. He had applied for appointment as a Panchayat Executive Officer, and the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Kozikode, by his order dated 3-2-1962, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext. P. 1, appointed the petitioner provisionally to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer of Kunnummal Panchayat. The relevant portion of Ext. P. 1 order is as follows:

(2.) The State has filed a counter affidavit containing the following averments: The petitioner's appointment to the post of the Panchayat Executive Officer was purely provisional, that the appointment to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer is governed by the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, that in order that the petitioner may be eligible for appointment to that post, the character and antecedents of the candidate must be acceptable to the appointing authority, that on verification through the routine channel as in the case of every other prospective candidate recommended by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the Government Service, the petitioner's character and antecedents were found to be not acceptable to the Government, that his reversion to the post of Panchayat Assistant under the Panchayat Establishment raised no justiciable issue and that he had no seniority or rank above the other candidates mentioned in his petition.

(3.) It was argued for the petitioner that although Ext. P. 4 order would in itself appear to be innocuous, its real effect was to cast a stigma on the petitioner as the real reason for the termination of his service as Panchayat Executive Officer was that his character and antecedents were not satisfactory. It may be noted that the basis of this argument is the averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's service as Panchayat Executive Officer was terminated because his character and antecedents were found to be not acceptable to the appointing authority. The argument was that it was really as a punishment that the petitioner's service as Panchayat Executive Officer was terminated and that he was reverted to his original post of Panchayat Assistant. Ext. P. 4 only says that the petitioner is reverted to his original post. I am inclined to hold that there was no dismissal or reduction in rank within the meaning of Art.311 and therefore no enquiry as contemplated by that Article was necessary. Assuming that the real reason why the service of the petitioner as Panchayat Executive Officer was purported to be terminated is that his character and antecedents were not found acceptable to the appointing authority, I take the view that the real effect of the order was not to terminate the service of the petitioner as Panchayat Executive Officer, but only to declare that he has never been appointed to that post. The Rule governing the appointment to the post of Panchayat Executive Officer is the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is specifically stated: