VISHVANATH VAIRUPATHI KITTUR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner holds B.Sc. Degree in Geology and a Diploma in Mining Engineering from the Central Board of Technical Education Mysore. On 27th February 1956 he joined the service of the Central Government and was attached to Indian Bureau of Mines at Calcutta. There he held the substantive post of a Junior Technical Assistant before be was appointed as a Driller. Thereafter the Government of Gujarat offered him a post of a Mining Officer and appointed him to that post on 2nd April 1962. He thereafter passed the Public Service Commission test and was regularly appointed to the post. He successfully completed two years period of probation and it was ordered that he had done so with effect from 19th July 1962. He also completed two years period of probation as a Senior Mining Officer. Later on the post of a Senior Mining Officer which he held was converted into the post of a Deputy Director of Geology and Mining with effect from 29th November 1966 His lien on the Central Government post therefore automatically came to a termination. On 13th April 1976 the post of a Deputy Director of Geology and Mines was abolished and the petitioner was discharged from service.

(2.) It is that order which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) The first question which has arisen for my consideration is whether a permanent employee can be discharged from service before he attains the age of superannuation. Mr. Takwani has pointed out to me that it is the prerogative of the Executive to abolish a post. In Ramanatha v. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2641 the question of creating continuing and abolishing the posts in the context of Arts. 309 310 and 311 of the Constitution arose. It is laid down that the power to create continue and abolish any civil post is inherent in every sovereign Government and that it is a policy decision exercised by the executive and is dependent on exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. It has been also observed by the Supreme Court in that decision that as a result of the abolition of a post the service of its incumbent may be terminated and that such termination is neither dismissal nor removal within the meaning of Art. 311. It has next been held that the abolition of a post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant and that therefore the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not arise in the case of abolition of a post. The next observation made by the Supreme Court shows that no right is conferred on the person to hold the post after it is abolished or to any other employment.