PROBODH CHANDRA JHA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner asks for an appropriate writ quashing an order of his discharge from service. On July 22, 1954 he was appointed to act as a Sub-inspector of Schools, Ratua, Dist. Malda, on a purely temporary basis with effect from the date on which he would join his appointment vice Phanindra Kishore Ganguly promoted or until further orders. As required by the Order of appointment, be furnished character certificates and an affidavit stating that he had never taken part in any criminal or subversive activities. By letters dated 3-11-1955 and 18-11-1955 the Deputy Inspector-General of police reported to the Director of Public Instructions that the petitioner was considered unsuitable for employment and that he was connected with the subversive organisation. Apparently, acting upon this report, the Director of Public Instructions on 28-11-1955 passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner. The order dated 28-11-1955 stated that the petitioner was not considered to be suitable person for employment in govt. service and was accordingly served with one month's notice of discharge with effect from the date of the communication of the order to him. In spite of subsequent representations to the Director of Public Instructions and a memorial to the Education Minister, the order of discharge has not been set aside. The petitioner also asked for permission from the Director of Public Instructions to serve as a temporary teacher in aided secondary schools but no permission was given as the Director had nothing to do with regard to such appointments. This Rule was obtained on 26-2-1957.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the order of discharge is an order of dismissal or removal from service by way of punishment inasmuch as:

(3.) The petitioner was employed on a purely temporary basis. It was an implied term of the contract of employment that it might be terminated at any time by reasonable notice. The contract was terminated by giving one month's notice in accordance with this implied term. The question is whether the petitioner was dismissed or removed "within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution."