U K NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for the purpose of quashing the two orders of the State Government, dated the 2nd September, 1972, and the 5th January, 1973 (Petitioner's Annexures HI and IV ). Under the first order, the State Government, purporting to Act under Fundamental Rule 56 (3), has ordered the petitioner's retirement from service on his completion of the age of 55 years and in lieu of three months' notice provided for in the Rule, agreeing to pay three months' salary instead. Under the second order, the petitioner has not been permitted to cross the Efficiency Bar in the scale of pay that he was drawing.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the State Town and Country Planning Department as a Senior Surveyer in the year 1950, and later in the same year, was appointed as a Town Planning Inspector after he was selected by the Public service Commission. He was confirmed in his appointment and held this post substantively till his retirement. As would appear from the copy of the judgment in Miscellaneous Petition No. 248 of 1979, U. K. Narayanan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh1 the petitioner was promoted by order dated 28-2-1963, temporarily as Assistant Engineer for a period of six months or till such time a candidate was selected by the Public Service Commission to fill in the post, whichever was earlier. The period was further extended for six months by order dated the 4th October, 1963. The third order extending the period of temporary appointment was made on 4-3-1964, till such time a candidate was selected by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner faced the Public Service Commission along with other candidates. He was not selected. Instead, Shri S. T. Majumdar and Shri r. S. Thakkar were selected. On 8-2-1955, the Chief Town Planner, Bhopal, issued an order of reversion of the petitioner to his substantive post consequent upon his non-selection by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was on a short leave when this order of reversion was communicated. On the expiry of the leave, the petitioner did not report on duty as Town Planning Inspector. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted for non-compliance of the order dated the 8th February, 1965, and for having used interpolate and discourteous language towards the Chief Town Planner, Bhopal. The Departmental Enquiry ended in his dismissal from Service with effect from 14-5-1970.

(3.) WHILE the Departmental Enquiry was pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition sometime in 1969 challenging the order of his reversion and the selection of Majumdar and Thakkar as Assistant Engineer. Upon his dismissal, he sought the relief of reinstatement also. The decision of the writ petition went in favour of the petitioner. The court held that Majumdar and Thakkar were not eligible to be selected, as they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications as notified. The petitioner's appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer could come to an end only after a valid selection was made. An invalid selection could not automatically terminate the petitioner's appointment. The Court further held that the order of reversion dated the 8th February 1965, was, therefore, an illegal order, the non-compliance of which could not visit the petitioner with the penalty of dismissal. The court said that the order terminating the petitioner's services should also have been passed by the State Government which was the appointing authority. That order was illegal, having been passed by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. The petitioner was accordingly ordered to be reinstated.