R S PERHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he was released from the defence services where he was working in the rank of Viceroy Commissioned Officer, in January, 1947. Thereafter he was appointed as a Gram Sevak by the Government of Bhopal, on September 27, 1954 and was promoted as Social Education Organiser in December 1955. The Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) advertised certain posts of Civilian Gazetted Officers, Grade III, vide advertisement dated January 15, 1966 and the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post and was selected. He was appointed as such vide letter dated August 11, 1966 (copy Annexure P-2). While he was holding the above post, the Commission again advertised certain posts in the rank of Civilian Gazetted Officers, Grade II, in 1967. The petitioner applied for that post and was selected. He was appointed as Civilian Gazetted Officer, Grade II, vide letter dated November 28, 1967 (copy Annexure P-3) and joined the new post on January 26, 1968. According to the letter of appointment, the initial period of appointment was for three years, out of which first two years were of probation. After the expiry of the period of three years, the service of the petitioner was extended from time to time. He was informed vide signal dated July 4, 1974 (copy Annexure P-9) that he had been reverted from that post to his parent department in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has challenged the order of reversion (copy Annexure P-9) the writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order of reversion amounts to an order of termination of the service of the petitioner. He argues that if it is so, one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, should have been given to him according to the terms and conditions of service, applicable to the petitioner. He further argues that as no notice or pay in lieu of notice was given to the petitioner, the order of termination was liable to be struck down.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments. It is not disputed by the counsel for the parties that the terms and conditions of service, as given in the letter Exhibit R-3 are applicable to the petitioner. In order to determine the question, it will be necessary to refer to paragraphs 3(i) and (ii) of the letter, Exhibit R-3 which are reproduced below :-