STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MADAN MOHAN BAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADAN Mohan Bag the respondent/petitioner herein is a citizen of India. He was temporarily appointed to the post of Cashier-cum-Clerk in the Directorate of Commercial Taxes (Entry Tax Branch), Government of West Bengal by the Directorate of Entry Tax and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal in the scale of Rs. 125-3-140-4-200 plus admissible allowances on the 11th of November, 1970. This was done by an office order dated 11th of November, 1970. On that date the petitioner was given a letter which stated, inter alia, as follows-"the appointment to him hereunder is subject to verification of his character and antecedents by the police and medical examination of his health by the prescribed medical authority". The appointment was originally for a period of three months from the date of joining The respondent/ petitioner, however, continued up to 30th of July, 1971. On that date he received the following communication:-

(2.) ON behalf of the appellants learned Junior Standing Counsel contended before us that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary. The petitioner had no right to continue if the petitioner respondent's appointment had not been extended. It was, further, urged that the order not extending the term of the respondent/petitioner did not exfacie contain any stigma and therefore the Court was precluded from examining whether any punishment had been inflicted upon the respondent/petitioner. It was, further, submitted that in case of public employments it was common knowledge that police verifications are made and if it is ordered that reports of verification should be made known to the party concerned then that would throw an impossible burden on the administration.

(3.) IT cannot be disputed that the appointment of the respondent/petitioner was temporary. The petitioner had no right, statutory or otherwise, to continue in his employment beyond the period he was allowed to do. It cannot also be disputed that the respondent/petitioner had no right statutory or constitutional to claim extension of his employment. The order or the communication informing the petitioner that his period of service would not be extended as noticed before does not contain any stigma. Where there are no express words in the order itself which would throw any stigma on the government servant the Court cannot look into the background resulting in the passing of such order in order to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred. See the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of I. N. Saksena v. State of M. P. , A. I. R. 1967 S. C. page 1264. In the case of State of U. P. v. Ram Chandra 1976 (2) Services Law Reporter page 869 the supreme Court observed that the order to which exception was taken ill that case was exfacie an order of termination of service simpliciter. It did not cast any stigma on the person nor did it visit the person concerned with any evil consequences nor was it founded on any misconduct. In those circumstances the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the party could not invite the court to go into the motive behind the order and claim the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was, further, of the opinion that where there were no express words in the impugned order itself which threw any stigma on the government servant the Court should not delve into secretarial files to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred on such research. As noticed before in this case the impugn ed communication ex facie does not contain any stigma. Furthermore in this case there is no question of violation of any statutory or constitutional right in not extending the period of employment of the respondent/ petitioner. Therefore no question of setting aside the impugned communication arises.