UPDESH SINGH Vs. SPEAKER OF PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service as Junior Translator in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, on November 20, 1967. According to the petitioner, he had joined the post on a temporary basis against a permanent vacancy whereas in the return filed on behalf of the Speaker and the Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha, it has been stated that he had been appointed purely on a temporary basis against a temporary post. The petitioner then alleges that on account of his good work and efficiency he was promoted to the post of Senior Translator with effect from June 5, 1968. This fact is denied by the said respondents and it has been pleaded that an officiating vacancy of a Senior Translator occurred in the Secretariat of the Vidhan Sabha and some officials of that Secretariat sat in a test and the petitioner, having fared better than others, was given the chance of officiating as Senior Translator. This appointment is also said to have been a temporary one against an officiating vacancy and not against a permanent vacancy. This vacancy had occurred because the previous incumbent Shri Som Nath Kalia, respondent No. 4, was appointed an officiating Superintendent but he held his lien on the post of Senior Translator. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner as Junior Translator on November 20, 1967, clearly stated that he had been selected for appointment as Temporary Junior Translator, that his appointment was temporary and carried no promise of subsequent permanent employment and thus his services were liable to be terminated without any notice. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha, by order dated May 9, 1969. The petitioner represented to the Speaker that he was not competent to terminate his services under the Constitution of India and that the order passed by him was illegal. The Speaker did not agree with the contention of the petitioner and, therefore, did not withdraw his order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in this Court on October 27, 1969, which was admitted on December 15, 1969. Separate written statements have been filed by respondents No. 1 and 3, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4.

(2.) The main point argued on behalf of the petitioner is that the Speaker had no jurisdiction to pass the order terminating his services. The order could be passed only by the Governor of Punjab or by the Secretary of Vidhan Sabha, who had issued the letter of appointment to him. The letter of appointment, no doubt, was issued by the Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha to the petitioner, but it has been stated in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 that the petitioner's appointment had been made by the Speaker under the powers given to him by the Governor of Punjab by order dated April 11, 1953, which reads as under :-

(3.) On merits, it has been stated that Speaker was led to pass the impugned order because of the mala fides of respondent No. 4. All allegations of mala fides have been denied by the respondents and no material has been placed on the record on the basis of which I can conclusively hold that there were any mala fides. Moreover, nothing has been said against the Speaker who passed the impugned order. I am, therefore, unable to quash that order on the ground of mala fides.