# HARTWELL PRESCOTT SINGH v. THE UTT AR PRADESH GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 509
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955-10-21
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1957
- **Bench:** S. R. Das C.J, Venkatarama Aiyar, Jafer Imam, A. K. Sarkar, Vivian Bose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hartwell-prescott-singh-v-the-utt-ar-pradesh-government-and-others-1477
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Government Servant-Temporary appointment -Officiating in
a high post-Order of Reversion-Whether reduction in rankPetitioner to establish reversion by way of penalty-Termination
of service according to conditions of service rules-ValidityWhether dismissal or-removal-Constitution of India, Art. 311.
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 appointed with
the approval of the Public
Service Commission of the United
Provinces, to officiate in Class II 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 terminated 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 unsatisfactory 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 established 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"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) 1 S.C.R. 26,
referred to.
·
OVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
:
Civil
Appeal
No. 100 of 1957.
1957
September 19.
SlO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1958]
19s1
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
HartwMrescott order dated October 21, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Sfnlh
Court Civil Miscellaneous Application 0. J. No. 120
Th4 u11'! Pratk1h of 1954.
Go•.r,,_h ntand
S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for
Ot ITS
h
ll
t e appe ants.
/mamJ.
G. C. Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the respondent.
1957. September 19. The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered 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 affidavit 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 l, 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 II as a Divisional
Superintendent of Agriculture with effect from April
25, 1944, with the approval of the Public Service
Commission of the United Provinces. He served in
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
511
Class II of the United Provinces Agricultur

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
HARTWELL PRESCOTT SINGH
v.
THE UTT AR PRADESH GOVERNMENT
AND OTHERS.
509
(S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JAFER IMAM,
A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.)
Government Servant-Temporary appointment -Officiating in
a high post-Order of Reversion-Whether reduction in rankPetitioner to establish reversion by way of penalty-Termination
of service according to conditions of service rules-ValidityWhether dismissal or-removal-Constitution of India, Art. 311.
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 appointed with
the approval of the Public
Service Commission of the United
Provinces, to officiate in Class II 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 terminated 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 unsatisfactory 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 established 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"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) 1 S.C.R. 26,
referred to.
·
OVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
:
Civil
Appeal
No. 100 of 1957.
1957
September 19.
SlO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1958]
19s1
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
HartwMrescott order dated October 21, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Sfnlh
Court Civil Miscellaneous Application 0. J. No. 120
Th4 u11'! Pratk1h of 1954.
Go•.r,,_h ntand
S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for
Ot ITS
h
ll
t e appe ants.
/mamJ.
G. C. Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the respondent.
1957. September 19. The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered 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 affidavit 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 l, 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 II as a Divisional
Superintendent of Agriculture with effect from April
25, 1944, with the approval of the Public Service
Commission of the United Provinces. He served in
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
511
Class II of the United Provinces Agricultural Service
1957
in a temporary capacity for about ten years when he Hartwell/Prescott
was reverted to his original appointment in the Sub-
$ingh
ordinate Agricultural Service by an order of the Uttar The Utt:; Pradelli
Pradesh Government dated May 3, 1954. The appelGovernmentand
lant protested against his reversion and handed over
Others
charge on May· 16, 1954 and went on leave until
Imam J.
October 2, 1954. In the meanwhile, a notice dated
September 13, 1954, terminating the
appellant's
services in the Subordinate Agricultural Service was
isstled to him by the Director of Agriculture. The
no~ce 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 t4e 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
conclusion 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 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 Subordinate Agricultural Service or in the United
Provinces Agricultural Service
Class II. In our
opinion, the finding of the Hi,gh Court that the appellant had failed to establish that he was confirmed as
a member of the Subordinate Agricultural 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
the permanent cadre of the United Provinces Agricultural Service had not been substantiated appears to us
also to be a correct finding upon the materials on the
record.
In considering the case of the appellant we must
proceed on the basis that no time was the appellant
appointed permanently either to the United Provinces
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958J
t9S7
Agricultural Sel"Vice or to the Subordinate Agricultural
Hartwel/Prescott Service. At all times he was temporarily employed.
Singh
Mr. Andley's contention on behalf of the appellant
1114 u11;; Pratksh had been that Art. 311 of the Constitution applied
Government and even to a temporary appointment
because
the
Others
appellant held a civil post under the. Government of
Imam J.
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 inefficiency and unsatisfactory work and the
order reverting him from the post held by him in the
United Provinces Agricultural Service to his original
appoinment 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 meaning of the provisions
of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
The decisions of this Court in Satish Chandra Anand
v. The Union of India (') and in Shyam Lal v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh (2) clearly establish that termi:
nation of the services of a person employed by. the
Government does not amount in all cases to dismissal
or removal from service. In the forn'ler case the termination was in accordance with the terms of the con- ,
tract 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 temporary capacity in the Subordinate Agricultural Service and was shown in the Gradation List as on probation. His conditions of service
(I) [1953) S.C.R. 655.
(•) [1953] I B.C.R. 26.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
513
were governed by the Subordinate Agriculture Service
19s1
Rules. Rule 25(4) of these Rules permits the Director Hartwdi'irescott
of Agriculture to terminate the services of a person
Singh
on probation by giving him one month's notice if that The Utt;; Pradesh
person has not made sufficient use of his opportunities Government and
if h h
h
.
~ .1 d
.
• ~ •
Th
Others
or
e as ot erwtse 1ai e to give sat1s1act1on.
e
termination of the appellant's services under r. 25(4)
Imam J.
does not amount to dismissal or removal from service
within the meaning of Art. 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 accordance 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 penalty. 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.