http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: HARTWELL PRESCOTT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENTAND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/1957

BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BOSE, VIVIAN DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SARKAR, A.K.

CITATION:  1957 AIR  886            1958 SCR  509

ACT:        Government  Servant-Temporary appointment-Officiating  in  a        higher  post--Order of Reversion-Whether reduction  in  rank        Petitioner to establish reversion by way of Penalty-Termina-        tion  of service according to conditions of  service  rules-        Validity--Whether   dismissal  or  removal-Constitution   of        India, Art. 311.

HEADNOTE:        The appellant who was holding a post in a temporary capacity        in  the Subordinate Agriculture Service, Uttar Pradesh,  and        was  shown  in the gradation list as on probation,  was  ap-        pointed  with the approval of the Public Service  Commission        of  the  United Provinces, to officiate in Class 11  of  the        said service as a Divisional Superintendent of  Agriculture.        After holding the said officiating post for about 10  years,        he was reverted to his original temporary appointment in the        face of his protest.  Thereafter his services were terminat-        ed by giving one month’s notice under rule 25, clause (4) of        the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules.        The  appellant contended that Art. 311 Of  the  Constitution        applied  even  to a temporary appointment because it  was  a        civil  post held under the Government; that the  termination        of service amounted to dismissal, or removal from his  post,        as it conveyed an imputation of inefficiency and unsatisfac-        tory  work, and that the order of reversion to his  original        post  amounted to a reduction in rank, as it was by  way  of        penalty.        Held, that reversion from a temporary post held by a  person        does  not  per se amount to reduction in  rank.   To  decide        whether the reversion is a reduction in rank, the post  held        must be of a substantive rank; and further it must be estab-        lished that the order of reversion was by way of penalty.        Termination  of  service  does not amount  to  dismissal  or        removal  from service within the meaning of Art. 311 of  the        Constitution,  if it is in accordance with the terms of  the        conditions  of  service.   In principle there  is  no  clear        distinction between the termination of services under the  "        terms  of  a contract", and that in accordance  with  the  "

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

      terms of conditions of service."        Satish  Chandra Anand v. Union of India, [1953] S.C.R.  688,        and Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1955] i S.C.R.        26, referred to.

JUDGMENT:        CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION :                Civil Appeal        No. 100 of 1957.        510        Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated        October  21,  1955,  of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Civil        Miscellaneous Application 0. J. No. 120 of 1954. -        S.   N.  Andley,  Rameshwar Nath and P. L.  Vohra,  for  the        appellants.        G.C.  Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent. 1957.   Sep-        tember  19.  The following Judgment of the Court was  deliv-        ered by        IMAM,  J.-This  is an appeal by special  leave  against  the        decision   of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  dismissing   the        appellant’s application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.        From the affidavits filed in the High Court by the  Personal        Assistant  to the Director of Agriculture of the  Government        of Uttar Pradesh and the appellant, it would appear that the        appellant  was  appointed from time to time in  a  temporary        capacity  to  the Subordinate Agricultural  Service  of  the        Uttar Pradesh Government by the Director of Agriculture.  He        served in that service during the periods detailed below:-        (a) In    Group II of the Subordinate Agricultural Service:                (i)    From November 16, 1936 to March 18, 1937.                (ii)   From April 1, 1937 to June 29, 1937.                (iii)  From August 9, 1937 to December 31, 1937.                (iv)   From January 6, 1938 to February 22, 1943.        (b)  In Group I of the Subordinate Agricultural Service                From  February 23, 1943 to April 24, 1944. While  he        was  still  in the Subordinate Agricultural Service  he  was        appointed to officiate in the United Provinces  Agricultural        Service Class 11 as a Divisional Superintendent of  Agricul-        ture  with effect from April 25, 1944, with the approval  of        the  Public Service Commission of the United Provinces.   He        served in        511        Class  II of the United Provinces Agricultural Service in  a        temporary capacity for about ten years when he was  reverted        to his original appointment in the Subordinate  Agricultural        Service  by an order of the Uttar Pradesh  Government  dated        May 3, 1954.  The appellant protested against his  reversion        and  handed  over charge on May 16, 1954 and went  on  leave        until  October  2, 1954.  In the meanwhile, a  notice  dated        September 13, 1954, terminating the appellant’s services  in        the  Subordinate Agricultural Service was issued to  him  by        the  Director  of Agriculture.  The notice purported  to  be        under  r. 25 cl. (4) of the Subordinate Agriculture  Service        Rules.   This  notice stated that the  appellant’s  services        would not be required after the expiry of one month from the        date  of  the issue of the order terminating  his  services.        The  appellant  challenged  the validity  of  the  aforesaid        orders  of reversion and termination of his  services.   The        High Court in dismissing his application came to the conclu-        sion  that the appellant had not been dismissed  or  removed        from  service and that Art. 311 of the Constitution did  not        apply  in  the circumstances of the case.   The  High  Court        dismissed  an  application filed by the  appellant  for  the        issue  of  a  certificate that the case was a  fit  one  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

      appeal to this Court.        It was conceded before us on behalf of the appellant that at        no time was he confirmed in any post either in the  Subordi-        nate  Agricultural Service or in the United Provinces  Agri-        cultural  Service Class 11.  In our opinion, the finding  of        the  High Court that the appellant had failed  to  establish        that  he was confirmed as a member of the Subordinate  Agri-        cultural Service, based upon the materials before it, was  a        correct finding.  The further finding of the High Court that        the appellant’s contention that he had been absorbed in  the        permanent cadre of the United Provinces Agricultural Service        had  not been substantiated appears to us also to be a  cor-        rect finding upon the materials on the record.        In considering the case of the appellant we must proceed  on        the basis that at no time was the appellant appointed perma-        nently either to the United Provinces        512        Agricultural  Service  or to  the  Subordinate  Agricultural        Service.   At  all times he was temporarily  employed.   Mr.        Andley’s contention on behalf of the appellant had been that        Art.  311  of the Constitution applied even to  a  temporary        appointment  because the appellant held a civil  post  under        the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh although he may        not  have  been a member of a Civil Service of  that  State.        The order terminating his services amounted to dismissal  or        removal from the post as it conveyed an imputation of  inef-        ficiency and unsatisfactory work and the order reverting him        from  the post held by him in the United Provinces  Agricul-        tural Service to his original appointment in the Subordinate        Agricultural Service amounted to a reduction in his rank, as        it was by way of penalty.  The mandatory provisions of  Art.        311  not  having  been complied with  the  aforesaid  orders        passed against the appellant were illegal.  The question for        consideration, therefore, is whether the orders  terminating        the  appellant’s services and reverting him to his  original        appointment  in the Subordinate Agricultural Service  amount        to removal, dismissal or reduction in rank within the  mean-        ing of the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution.        The decisions of this Court in Satish Chandra Anand v.  -The        Union  of India (1) and in Shyam Lal v. The State  of  Uttar        Pradesh (2) clearly establish that termination of the  serv-        ices of a person employed by the Government does not  amount        in  all cases to dismissal or removal from service.  In  the        former case the termination was in accordance with the terms        of  the  contract and in the latter case it was  by  way  of        compulsory  retirement of a member of a Service  under  Art.        465A of the Civil Service Regulations.  This Court held that        in  neither  case  the termination of the  services  of  the        person  concerned  amounted  to dismissal  or  removal  from        service within the meaning of Art. 311 of the  Constitution.        In  the present case the appellant was employed in a  tempo-        rary  capacity in the Subordinate Agricultural  Service  and        was shown in the Gradation List as on probation.  His condi-        tions of service        (1) [1953] S.C.R. 655.        (2) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26.        513        were governed by the Subordinate Agriculture Service  Rules.        Rule  25(4) of these Rules permits the Director of  Agricul-        ture  to terminate the services of a person on probation  by        giving  him  one months notice if that person has  not  made        sufficient  use of his opportunities or if he has  otherwise        failed  to  give  satisfaction.   The  termination  of   the        appellant’s  services  under  r. 25(4) does  not  amount  to        dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Art.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

      311 as it was in accordance with the terms of the conditions        of  service applicable to the appellant.  In  principle,  we        cannot see any clear distinction between the termination  of        the  services  of  a person under the terms  of  a  contract        governing him and the termination of his services in accord-        ance with the terms of his conditions of service.  The order        complained against did not contravene the provisions of Art.        311 and was therefore a valid order.        Reversion  from a temporary post held by a person  does  not        per  se  amount to reduction in rank because  the  temporary        post  held  by  him is not his substantive  rank.   For  the        purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to decide in  what        circumstances a reversion would be regarded as reduction  in        rank as the appellant has not established as a fact that the        order of reversion passed against him was by way of a penal-        ty.   The order of reversion, therefore, did not  contravene        the provisions of Art. 311 and was a valid order.        The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.                                        Appeal dismissed.        514