STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. TILAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of U.P. the come up in appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of this court, dated April 22, 1974, allowing a Writ Petition filed by Sri Tilok Singh and quashing the order of the Collector, Etah dated December 26, 1970 terminating his service. The petitioner was appointed as a Naib in Tehsil Jalesar, Dis trict Etah. Acting under the rules applicable to Temporary Govern ment Servant, the Collector, Etah terminated his services by means of an order dated November 26, 1970. Petitioner representation against the aforesaid order was rejected on January 20, 1971. Being aggrieved, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court challenging the orders dated November 26, 1970 and January 20, 1971, terminating his service and rejecting his presentation. The petitioner claimed that he was a permanent employee. The order terminating his service was invalid as it had been made in con travention of Arts. 14, 15 and 311 of the Constitution. The Writ Peti tion was contested on behalf of the State of U.P. It alleged that while terminating petitioner's service no discrimination had been practised. As the Petitioner was a temporary Government servant his services could be terminated in accordance with the Rules appli cable to temporary Government Servants. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant and that in this case there was no contravention of Arts. 14 or 15 of the Constitution inasmuch as the service records of the persons who had been retained in service and were junior to the petitioner, were bet ter than that of the petitioner.

(2.) HE however, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 423, allowed the Writ Petition holding that since the order terminating petitioner services was based on certain adverse entries contained in his character roll, it amounting to dismissing or removing him from service. Such an order passed without complying with the provisions of Art. 811 of the Constitution was invalid. In the result he quashed the orders dated November 26, 1970 and January 20, 1971. Being aggrieved, the State of U.P. has come up in special appeal. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the present pro ceedings have to be disposed of on the footing that the appellant was a temporary Government Servant, has not been questioned before us.

(3.) IN this case, it cannot be doubted that termination of petitioner's service is founded on a right flowing from the rules applicable to temporary Government servant and prima facie such termination of service would not amount to punishment and will not carry with it any evil consequences. As according to the counter-affidavit filed in the case, the service record of the persons retained in service, was better than that of the petitioner, no question of contravention of or practising any discrimination in contravention of Arts. 14 and 16 arises. In Sughar Singh's case (supra), Sughar Singh, a Sub-Inspector of police had been, as conceded by the Standing Counsel, reverted as a head constable on the basis of an adverse entry made in his charac ter roll. That was not a case where the Sub-Inspector was reverted as a result of an overall assessment of his work and when it was found that he was unfit for being confirmed as a Sub-Inspector. The Supreme Court pointed that in that case, the State Government was on the horne of a dilerma inasmuch as the order reverting Sughar Singh had either been made by way of punishment or in contraven tion of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, inasmuch as he had been singled out for revertion from amongst 200 other officers without any basis. No such dilema exists in the present case, we are, therefore, of opinion that reliance on Sughar Singh's case is completely mis placed. The order on the face of it flows from a right to terminate petitioner's service under the Rules of service and it does not cast any stigma upon him. Here circumstances that petitioner's service was terminated when on an overall assessment of his service record it was found that he was not fit to be confirmed cannot, in our opi nion, lead us to infer that the termination order is founded on the right to punish the petitioner by way of dismissal or removal from service. In the circumstances, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not at all attracted to the facts of the present case.