# SUPREME COUH'l' REPORTS K. S. SRINIVASAN v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1295
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1957
- **Bench:** S. R. Das C.J, VENKATARAMA AlYAR, s. K. DAS, A. K. Sarkar, VIVIAN BosE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-couh-l-reports-k-s-srinivasan-v-union-of-india-1415
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

1295
Union Service, Termination of-Servant in quasi-permanent
status-Post kept in abeyance-Ordered to carry the status
while officiating in new appointment under miisapprehensionValidity-Test--Consultation with Federal Public Service CommisS!ion1 if mandat01rY-Servant, if entitled to Constitutional
protection-Constitution of India, Art, 311(2)-Central Civil
Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1947, rr. 3, 4 and 6(1).
The appellant held the post of a Public Relations Officer,
AU India Radio, and was declared to be in quasi-permanent
·Service under r. 3. of the Central Civil Service (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1949. As a measure of war economy the
Government decided to hold the post "in abeyance" and
the appellant was appointed to officiate as Assistant Staion
Director in a temporay capacity and was ordered to carry
with him his quasi-permanent status wh.iie holding his new
post. On the objection of the Union Public Service Commission, however, the service of the appellant was terminated
and he was appointed to a temporary past of Assistant Information Officer . which belonged to a lower grade. The appellant moved the High Court for a writ of certiorari. His
contentilon was that as, admittedly, he had not been called
upon to show cause, Art. 311(2) of the Constitution was vio~
lated. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the
order permitting the· appellant to carry his quasi-permanent
status to his new post having been made under a misapprehension that the post of Assistant Station Director belonged
to the same grade as that of the Public Relations Officer, his
service was terminable under the relevant Service Rules:
Hel'd (per Das, C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. Das and
A. K. Sarkar, JJ., Bose, J. Dissenting), that the post of Assistant Station Director was not a post in the same grade as
that of the Public Relat:ons Officer and under the relevant
Service Rules he could not carry his quasi-permanent status
to the new post; as the order . permitting the appellant to
carry 'his quasi--permarJent status was passed under a misapprehension and was not intended to confer ·on him
that
status independently in the new post, his service was terminable under r. 6(1) of the Rules.
It is well settled that. if a servant has no right to the post
and his service can be terminated under the Service Rules,
Art. 311 (2) is not attracted. Consequently, the appellant who
was appointed on a purely temporacy capacity, could not
seek. the protection of Art. 311 (2).
·
·
19J8
.February 18.
1968
K. B. Srinivasan
v.
Union of India
1296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958)
Parshotam Lal Dhinura v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R.
828, relied on.
Admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted although it may in certain circumstances operate as an
estoppel. In the present case, as the appellant was in no way
misled as to his quasi-permanent status by the errom!<lus
order of the Government, no question of estoppel could arise.
Held, further, that the word 'reduction' in cl. (ii) of r.
6(1) of the Rules is not necessarily confined to abolition but
also includes keeping iri abeyance of posts and the ·Nord 'certify' occurring. therein does not necessarily imply tQat a formal
order is essential.
The same scale of pay is not the only test for finding out
if a particular post belongs to the same grade as another
within the meaning of the proviso to cl. (ii) of r. 6(1) of the
Service Rules, nor does the tact that the two belong to the
same class determine the question.
Quasi-permanent status is a creature Of the Rules and a
servant who seeks the benefit of r. 3 must be held to be bound
by the proviso to r. 4(b) of the Rules.
State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958] S.C.R.
533, neid inapplicable.
Per Bose, J .-The order of. the Government permitting
the appellant to carry with him the quasi-permanent status
he had in his former post was clearly intended to confer on
the appellant quasi-permanent status in his new post and the
Government could n

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 81,301. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

S.C.R.
SUPREME COUH'l' REPORTS
K. S. SRINIVASAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AlYAR, s. K. DAS,
A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.)
1295
Union Service, Termination of-Servant in quasi-permanent
status-Post kept in abeyance-Ordered to carry the status
while officiating in new appointment under miisapprehensionValidity-Test--Consultation with Federal Public Service CommisS!ion1 if mandat01rY-Servant, if entitled to Constitutional
protection-Constitution of India, Art, 311(2)-Central Civil
Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1947, rr. 3, 4 and 6(1).
The appellant held the post of a Public Relations Officer,
AU India Radio, and was declared to be in quasi-permanent
·Service under r. 3. of the Central Civil Service (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1949. As a measure of war economy the
Government decided to hold the post "in abeyance" and
the appellant was appointed to officiate as Assistant Staion
Director in a temporay capacity and was ordered to carry
with him his quasi-permanent status wh.iie holding his new
post. On the objection of the Union Public Service Commission, however, the service of the appellant was terminated
and he was appointed to a temporary past of Assistant Information Officer . which belonged to a lower grade. The appellant moved the High Court for a writ of certiorari. His
contentilon was that as, admittedly, he had not been called
upon to show cause, Art. 311(2) of the Constitution was vio~
lated. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the
order permitting the· appellant to carry his quasi-permanent
status to his new post having been made under a misapprehension that the post of Assistant Station Director belonged
to the same grade as that of the Public Relations Officer, his
service was terminable under the relevant Service Rules:
Hel'd (per Das, C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. Das and
A. K. Sarkar, JJ., Bose, J. Dissenting), that the post of Assistant Station Director was not a post in the same grade as
that of the Public Relat:ons Officer and under the relevant
Service Rules he could not carry his quasi-permanent status
to the new post; as the order . permitting the appellant to
carry 'his quasi--permarJent status was passed under a misapprehension and was not intended to confer ·on him
that
status independently in the new post, his service was terminable under r. 6(1) of the Rules.
It is well settled that. if a servant has no right to the post
and his service can be terminated under the Service Rules,
Art. 311 (2) is not attracted. Consequently, the appellant who
was appointed on a purely temporacy capacity, could not
seek. the protection of Art. 311 (2).
·
·
19J8
.February 18.
1968
K. B. Srinivasan
v.
Union of India
1296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958)
Parshotam Lal Dhinura v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R.
828, relied on.
Admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted although it may in certain circumstances operate as an
estoppel. In the present case, as the appellant was in no way
misled as to his quasi-permanent status by the errom!<lus
order of the Government, no question of estoppel could arise.
Held, further, that the word 'reduction' in cl. (ii) of r.
6(1) of the Rules is not necessarily confined to abolition but
also includes keeping iri abeyance of posts and the ·Nord 'certify' occurring. therein does not necessarily imply tQat a formal
order is essential.
The same scale of pay is not the only test for finding out
if a particular post belongs to the same grade as another
within the meaning of the proviso to cl. (ii) of r. 6(1) of the
Service Rules, nor does the tact that the two belong to the
same class determine the question.
Quasi-permanent status is a creature Of the Rules and a
servant who seeks the benefit of r. 3 must be held to be bound
by the proviso to r. 4(b) of the Rules.
State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958] S.C.R.
533, neid inapplicable.
Per Bose, J .-The order of. the Government permitting
the appellant to carry with him the quasi-permanent status
he had in his former post was clearly intended to confer on
the appellant quasi-permanent status in his new post and the
Government could not be allowed to go back upon it although
it may have acted under a m,istake, subsequently discovered.
The Commissioner
of Police, Bombay
v. Gordhandas
Bhanji, [1952] S.C.R. 135, applied.
Moreover, under r. 4(a) of the Rules the Government had
tire power to confer such a status without any previous consultation with the Federal Public Service Commission as required by r. 4(b) of the Rules, the words 'is required to be
made' occurring in that rule being only directory and not
mandatory.
St~te of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958] S.C.R.
533, Biswanath Khemka v. The Kinu Emperor, [1945] F.C.R.
99 and Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin,
[1917] A.C. 170, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 78 of
1957 and Petition No. 81 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated Novembet 25, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Civil
Writ No. 209-D of 1955.
S.C,R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1297
K. S. Krishnaswamy Aiyanger and C. V. L. Narayan, for
1958
~he appellant.
K. s. Srinivasan
v.
P.A. Mehta, R. Ganilpathy Iyer · and R. H.
Dhebar,
Unioo of lndi"
for the respondent.
1958. February 18. The Judgment of Das C. J., Venka-
~rama Aiyar, S.K. Das and Sarkar, 1JJ., was delivered by
S.K. Das J. Bose J. delivered a separate judgment.
S. K. DAs J.-On May 1, 1946, Shri K. S. Srinivasan, s. K. Da• J.
appellant before us, was appointed to a post of Liaison
Officer, All India Radio, on a pay of Rs. 350 per
month in the scale of Rs. 350-20-450-25/2-550. The appoint·
ment was made on the recommendation of the then Federal
Public Service Commission, and the advertisement or memorandum of information for candidates, as it is more properly
called, issued by the Publfo Service Commission when calling
for applications for the said post, rela:ted tt> the recruitment
for nine posts of Listeners' Research Officers and nine posts
of Liaison Officers, All India Radio. It was stated in the
said memorandum that the posts were permanent and pensionable, but would be filled on a temporary basis; the memorandwit ·further stated that if the persons doncerned were retained in ·service and confirmed in the posts, they would be
-allowed pensionary benefits and would ailso be eligible to
contribute . to the General Provident Fund. In the first
instance the appointments were made on probation for six
m011ths subject to termination on certain conditions mention·
ed .in para. 4 of the memorandum, whiab. need not be set out
at this stage. The duties of .a Liaison. Officer were stated in
para. 5 of the memorandum, the main duty being. to organise
and
conduc~ · publicity for the programmes and other
activities of a Radio Station. The designation Liaison
Offieer was Jater changed to Public Relations Officer,
and atong with other posts of Listener Research Officer and
Assistant Station Director, the posts of Public Relations
Officers were upgraded to Rs. 450-25-500-30-800 with effect
ftom Januitty 1, 1947. On May 23, 1952, .the Director
General, All India Radio, passed an order bearing No. 2(1)
1958
K. S. Sriniva.san
v.
Union of India
8. K.Da11J.
1298
SUPRE111E COURT REPORTS
[1958]
A I 50 in which it was stated that whereas the appellant had
been in continuous Government service for more than three
years and a declaration had been issued to him in pursuance
of rr. 3 and 4 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1949, and whereas an a;;>pointment to the post
of Public Relations Officer was required to be made in con·
sultation with the Union Public Service Commission and
their concurrence to the! appointment had been obtained, the
appellant wa;s appointed to the Public Relations Officer's grade
in a quasi-permanent capacity with effect from May 1, 1949.
On September 3, 1952, however, the appellant received an
order from the said Director-General in which it was stated
that his services would not be required after October 6, 1952.
The appellant was naturally taken by surprise on receipt of this
order and made a representation on September 8, 1952, in
which he stated that as a quasi-permanent Public Relations
Officer he had a claim to an alternative post in the same
grade, so long as any post in the si.1ne grade was held by a
Government servant not in permanent or quasi-permanent
service. On September 13, 1952, the appellant was informed
by means of an order that he wais appointed to officiate as
Assistant Station Director, Madras (the appellant was then
working as Public Relations Officer, All India Radio, Madras)
in a purely temporary capacity until further orders. On
September 19, 1952, the appellant was informed that his representation dated September 8, 1952, Wll!l under consideration and a suggestion was made that in the meantime he
should apply for one of the posts of Assistant Station
Directors which had been advertised by the Union Public
Service Commission. Then, on October 4, 1952, the appellant
submitted a further representation in which he said that under
the rules in question, namely the Central Civil Service
'(Temporary Service) Rules,
1949, he was entitled to be
retained in service in a post of the same grade and under the
same appointing authority; and it was, therefore, not necessary that he should be re-selected for the post of Assistant
Station .Director by the Union Public Service Commission. In
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1299
the concluding paragraph of his representation the appellant
stated that in deference to the suggestion made in the letter
of the Director-Gener~! dated September 19, 1952, he was
enclosing· an application to the Union Public Service Com·
mission for the post of Assistant Station Director and if, after
due consideration, the Director-General decided that the
appellant should apply for the post of Assistant Station
Director, his application should be forwarded to the Union
Public Service Commission. While Government was consider·
ing the representation of the appellant, the Union Public Commission interviewed in March, 1953, candidates for the posts
of Assistant Station Directors. The appellant appeared before
the Commission on March 26, 1953. On April 18, 1953, the
appellant was informed that the Union Public SerVice Com·
mission had not selected him and the appellant was aigain
informed that "it was not possible to continue him in service."
The- appellant made fresh representations to the effect that
the order purporting to terminate his service on the ground
that the Union Public Service Commission had not selected
him for the post of Assistant_ Station Director, was an illegal
order inasmuch as the appellant held a quasi~permanent
status a.nd was entitled to hold a post in the grade of Assistant
Station Directors, as .long as anyone not in permanent or
quasi-permanent service continued to hold such a post. To
these representations the appellant received a reply to the
effect that Government had decided to keep in abeyance the
post of Public Relations Officer held by hiln and therefore
it was not possible to retain him in that post and the appellant
was given an opportunity to show cause why · his service
should not be termiyated on the expiry of the period of
notice with effect from July 18, 1953. A reply wag asked
for within 15 days. In reply, the appellant again pointed out
that having been given a quasi-permanent status he was
entitled to be retaJined in service under the rules governing
Government servants holding such status, and the termination
of his service would be in violation of Article 3 U
of the
1958
K. 8. 8rinivaBan
Y.
Uni<m of India
8.K.DOBJ.
1958
K. S. Srint!lMan
v.
Union of India
1300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
Constitution. Gn July 3, 1953, the appellant received a
memorandum dated June 9, 1953. This memorandum said:
"Shri Srinivasan's representation has nnw been considered
by Government. As the posts of Public Relations Officers
form a cadre by themselves ·and do not belong to the cadre
of Assistant Station Directors, he cannot claim any protection
in the post bf Assistant Station Director on irccount of his
being quasi-permanent as Public Relations Officer. Shri
Srinivasan may please be informed accordingly."
On July 10, 1953, the appellant made a fresh representation, this· time to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, in
which he repeated his former objections and contended that
the proposed termination of his service was irregular, unjust
and illegal. He submitted that the order terminating his service was in contravention of Art. 311 of the Constitution and -
he further sa,id that "though the posts of Public Relations
Officer and Assistant Station Director were not declared to
be in the same cadre, there can be no dispute that the posts
are in the same grade." On August 17, 1953, the appellant
received a memorandum to the effect that the notice of the
termination of his service as Assistant Station Director dated
April 18, 1953, as subsequently amended by corrigenda dated
May 12, 1953, and July 3, 1953, was withdrawn, and it also
stated that the notide dated May 26, 1953, asking the appellant to show cause why his service should not be terminated
was cancelled. This was followed by an order dated December 14, 1953. This order has an important bearing on the
points urged befure us and must be quoted in fu!J.:
"S. Noc 41(R)
Government of India,
Director General, All India Ral.lio.
No. 1(113)-SII52.
New Delhi,
the 14th December, 1953.
ORDER.
In this Directorate Order No. 2(1)-A/50, dated the 23rd
May, 1952, Shri K.
S.
Srinivasan, then officiating Public
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1301
Relations Officer, AU India Radio, was appointed to that
post in a quasi-permanent capacity with effect from
the lst May, 1949.
Subsequently, in August 1952, all
posts of Public Relations Officers, except the one in the External Services Division, were held in abeyance. As the post
of Public Relations Officer belongs to the same grade as
Assistant Station Director calrrying 'identidal scales of pay
Shri Srinivasan was appointed Assistant Station Director
in the External Services Division with effect from the 22nd
September, 1952. Under the
pr~vision contained. in the
Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 54/136/
51-NGS, dated the 24th April, 1952, Shri Srinivasan will
carry with him the quasi-permanent stait!us of his former .
pt>st of Public Relations Officer while holding the po'st of
Assistant Station Director.
.• (Sd.) M. Lal,
.Dire~tor-General."
A copy of the order w~ also sent, fo the Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission. Unfortunately, the appellant soon found that his troubles did not end with the order
dated December 14, 1953. On August 31, 1955, the appellant
was informed by the then Secretary, Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting, 'that Union · Public Service Commission had objected to his appointment as
~ssistant Station
Director, holding that such appointment was contrary to the
regulations; the appellant was then asked that he should relinquish the post of Assistant Station Director and accept
a temporary post of Assistant Information Officer in the
Press Information Bureau or, in the alternative, he should
"clear out". It may be stated here that the. post of Assistant Information Officer offered to the appellant carried a
scale of pay lower thain that of an Assistant Station Pirector, namely Rs. 350-25-500-30-620. As this new offer deprived the appellant of his quasi-permanent status and' also
amounted to a reduction in his rank, the-appellant immedia~
tely sent fresh representations to the Home Minist.ey, Director-General, and the Minister for Information and Bt'Qadcasting. On September 7, 1955, the appellant received the final
1958
K. S. fl~i1tioo~a•
v.
Uni<m of India
S.K.DMJ.
1958
K. 8. 8rinivaaan
v.
Union of India
S.K.DMJ.
1302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958)
order of Gbvernment, which is the order complained of in
the present appeal. That order was in these terms:
"Shri Srinivasan was declared quasi-permanent in the
grade of Public Relations Officer, All India Radio (Rs. 45025-500-EB-30-800) with effect from the 1st May, 1949. In
1952, all the posts of Public Relations Officer excepting one
in the External Services Division were held in abeyance as
a measure of economy. The only post that survived the
ecbnomy drive was assigned to the permanent incnmbent.
Shri Srinivasan would have had to be retrenched in 1952; for
quasi-permanency does not preclude retrenchment and .there
was no other officer in the grade of Public Relations Officer
who was non-quasi-permanent Mid who could have been discharged in preference to him. He was irregularly transferred
as Asst. Station Director, in an officiating capacity. He applied for one of the posts of Assistant Station Director when
they were ad~ertised by the Union Public Service Commission in 1953, but was rejected. Subsequently, he was allowed
to carry a:lso irregularly, the quasi-permanent status in the
grade of Public Relations Officer while holding the post of
Assistant Station Director, vide Directorate General, All
India Radio's order No. 1 (113) SI/52 dated the 14th
December, 1953.
The Union Public Service Commission
have not accepted this transfer as it is in contravention of
the Union Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations. Since he has been rejected for the post of Assistant
Station Director in an open selection and also
since the
Union Public Service Commission have not accepted his
transfer, the Government of India regret that they are unable to allow him to continue in the post of Assistant Station
Director. He is, therefore, required· fo relinquish charge of
the post of Assistant Station Director immediately.
"To save him the ha!rdship of retrenchment, the question of offering Shri Srinivasan alternative employment has
been considered. There is no intention of reviving the posts
of Public Relations Officer -that were held in abeyance in
1952. For publicity and public relations work of All India
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1303.
Radio, a few posts of Assistant Information Officer in the
scale of Rs. 350-25-500.EB-30-620 have been sanctioned on
the strength of the Press Information Bureau and it is proposed to absorb him on temporary basis, against one of these
posts. The absorption in this post also, is subject to the
approval by the Union Public Service Commission to whom
a reference has been made. Meanwhile, after relinquishing the
charge of the post of Assistant Station Director, he should .
report himself for duty to the Principal Information Officer,
Press Information Bureau, New Delhi. The question of fixation of his pay in the grade of Assistant Information Officer,
with a view to protecting his present salary will be taken up
after he has joined duty."
The appellant continued to make some more representations which were, however, rejected, arnd on October 11, 1955,
an order was palssed transferring the appellant to the Press
Information Bureau as officiating Assistant Information
Officer with immediate effect and the appellant was directed
to hand over charge ol the post of Assistant Station Director
immediately and to take over his pt>st in the Press Infonnation Bureau forthwith. The validity of this order, which is
also challenge<i in the present appea!I, necessarily depends on
the validity of the earlier order dated September _7, 1955.
The appellant refused to accept the lower post of Assistant Press Information Officer and on October 19, 1955, he
made over charge under protest. On November 25, 1955, the
appellant filed a petition, numbered Writ Petition 209-D of
1955 in the Punjab High Court in which he prayed for the
issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for
quashing the orders dated September 7, 1955, a:nd October
11, 1955, and asked for an order directing his rdnstatement
as Assistant Station Director in the External Services Division of the All India Radio, the post which he was holding
when the orders complained of were passed. This petition
was summarily dismissed by the Punjab High Court on the
same date. The appellant then moved the said High Court
1958
J(. S. Srt'.nivaaan
v.
Union of India
S. K. DaaJ,
1958
K. 8. Sri11il:a$an.
v.
l.i11ion of lndla
S. K. Da•J.
1304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
for a cerifitoate for leave to appeal to this Court. That application was also dismissed on March 16, 1956. Thereupon, the
appellant moved this Court for Specii1l Leave and obtained
such leave on April 23, 1956. While moving the application
for special leave, learned counsel for the appellant stated
that without prejudice to the contentions of either party, the
appellant would take up the post of Assistant Information
Officer in the Press Information Bureau pending disposal of
the appeal.
On April 22, 1956, the appellant also filed a petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution and in this petition the
appellant has challenged the order dated September 7, 1955,
on the ground that the order violates the provisions of Arts.
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The present judgment will govern the appeal by special
leave as also the petitibn under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
It will be convenient to take up the appeal first. The main
question for decision in the appeal is .whether the impugned
orders violate the constitutional guarantee given by Art.
311(2) to the appellant, who is ad'mittedly the holder of a
civil post under the Union. The true scope and effect of Art.
311 of the Constitution was 'fully considered in w recent
judgment of this Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union
of India('), pronounced on November 1, 1957, and it was
there 'held by the majority as follows (we are quoting such
observations only as have a bearing on the present case):
"Shortly put, the principle is that when a servant has
a right to a post or to a rank either under the terms of the
contract of employment, express or implied, or under the
rules gt>verning the conditions of his service, the termination
of the service of such a servant or his reduction to a lower
post is by itself and prima facie a punishment, for it operates
as a forfeiture of his right to hold that post or that rank
and to get the emoluments and other benefits attached thereto. But if the servant has no right to the post, as where he is
appointed to a post, permanent or temporary, either on proba.-
(1) [19581 S.C.R 828.
8.C.R.
SUPBEME COURT REPOR'rs
1305
tion or on an officiating basis and whbse temporary service
has not ripened into a quasi-permanent service as defined
in the Temporary Service Rules, the termination of his
employment does not deprive him of any right and cannot,
therefore, by itself, be a punishment. One test for determining whether the termination of the service of a government
servant is by way of punishment is to ascertain whether the
servant, but for such termination, had the right to hold the
post. If he had a right to the post as in the three oases hereinbefore mentioned, the termination of his service .will by
itself be a punishment and he will be entitled to the protection of Art. 311. Jn other words and broadly speaking, Art.
31 I <2) will apply to those cases where the government servant. had he .been employed by a private employer, would be
entitled to maintain an action for wrongful dismissal, removal
or reduction in rank. To put it in another way, if the government has, by contract, express or implied, or, under the rules,
the right to terminate the employment at any time, then such
termination in the manner provided by the contract or the
rules is, prima f acie and per se, not a punishment and does
not attract the provisions of Art. 311."
Therefore, the
critical question is-did the
appellant
have a right to the post of Assistant Station Director, which he
was holding, when the impugned orders were passed? If he
had! such a right, the impugned orders will undoubtedly be
bad because they deprive the appellant of that' right inasmuch
as they terminate his service in the post he was holding and
reduce him tb a lower post. Admittedly, there was no proceeding against the appellant for disc.iplinary action and he
had no opportunity of showing cause against any su,ch action.
lf, on the contrary, the appellant had no right to the post
he was holding and under the rules governing the conditions
of his service his service was liable to be terminated, then
the appellant is not entitled to the protection of Art. 311. On
behalf of the appellant the contention is that under the Civil
Services <Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 he held a. quasiL/S4SCI-8
1958
K. S. 8rinfrasa.11,
v.
U1'ion of India
s. K. D<BJ.
1968
K. S. Sri1tfoa,~t1n
v.
U1iion of lrulia
8. K. Das .J.
1306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I 958J
permanent status in the post of Public Rela:tions Officer to
which he was first appointed and he carried that status to
the post of Assistant Station Director to which he was later
appointed; therefore, he had a right <?f which he could not
be deprived except in accordance with those rules, and the
impugned orders were passed in derogation of those rules.
Furthermore, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that
the Union Public Service Commission failed to appreciate"
the correct legal position and their opinion, officious or otherwise, was neither decisive nor binding on Government or the
appellant.
On behalf of the Union of India. respondent before us,
it has been conceded that the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. l 949 are the relevant rules governing the
conditions of the appellant's service. But the argument is
that the impugned orders are in consonance with those rules
and the service of the appellant who was in quasi-permanent
service in the post of Public Relations Officer was liable to
termination
under r. 6(1)(ii), because (I) a reduction had
occurred in the number of posts of Public Relations Officers
available for Government servants not in permanent service,
and (2) the post of Assistant Station Director to which the
appellant was appointed in a purely temporary capacity was
not a post of the same grade a.s the specified post held by
the appellant so as to entitle him to the benefit of the proviso
to r. 6(l)(ii). On behalf of the respondent it has been further
submitted that the order dated December 14, 1953 was issued
under a misapprehension and when the correct position was
rightly pointed out by the Union Public Service Commission,
Government passed the impugned order of September 7, 1955
and by way of mitigating the hardship of the appellant who
was faced with . the prospect of immediate
unemployment
offered him the post of Assistant Inform®on Offi0er--a
post created for the performance of duties similar to those
of the whilom Public Relations Officer.
These are the rival contentions which fall for consideration by us. We must at this stage read the relevant
•
S.C.H.
SUPR]!;ME COURT REPORTS
1307
rules called the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1949~ hereinafter to be referred to as the Temporary
Service Rules. Rule 2 defines certain terms used in the Temporary Service Rules. We are concerned with two of such
terms-"Quasi-permanent service" and "specified posts".
"Quasi-permanent service" means "temporary service
commencing from the date on , which a declaration issued under
rule 3 takes effect and consisting of periods of duty and
leave (other than extraordinary leave)_ after that date";
"specified post" means "the particular post, or the particular
grade of posts within a cadre, in respect of which a Government servant is decfared to be quasi-permanent under rule
3". Rule 3. which we must read in full, is in these terms:
"A Government servant shall be deemed to be in quasipermanent service:
(i) if he has been in continuous Government service for
more than three years, _and
(ii) if the appointing authority, being satisfied as to his
suitability in respect of age, qualifications, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent capacity, has issued
a declaration to that effect, in accordance with such instructions as the Governor-Generali may issue from time to time."
Rules 4 and 6(1), are also important for our purpose and
must be reproduced in full.
"Rule 4. (a) A declaration issued under rule 3 shall
specify the particular post or the particular grade of posts
within a cadre, in respect of which it is issued, and the date
from which it takes effect.
(b) Where recruitment to a specified post is required to
be made in consultation with the Federal Public Service
Commission no such declaration shall be issued except after
consultation with the Commission."
"Rule 6. (]) The service of a Government servant ill
quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination-
(i) in the same circumstances and in the same manner
L/S4SCI-8(a)
1958
K. S. Sriniva~an
v.
lln-ion, of i'ltdU.
8. K. DasJ.
19fJ8
K. 8. Bl'iniva8an
,.,
Uni1>n of India
8. K. Da8J.
•
1308
SUPHEMg COUHT REPORTS
[ l 958 J
as a Government servant in permanent service, or
(ii) when the appointing authority concerned has certifi·
ed that a reduction ha6 occurred in the number of posts
available for Government servants not in permanent service:
Provided that the service of a Government servant in
quasi-permanent service shall not be liable to termination
under cl. (ii) so long as any post of the same grade and under
the same appointing authority as the specified post held by
him, .continues to be held by a Government servant not in
permanent or quasi-permanent service:
Provided further that as among Government servants
in quasi-permanent service whose specified posts are o_f the
same grade and under the same appointing authority, termination of servioe consequent on reduction of posts shall
ordinarily take place in order of juniority in the list referred
to in r. 7."
As rule 6(1) refers to r. 7, we may as well quote that rule.
"Rule 7. (l) Subject to the provision of this rule. a
Government serva.nt in respect of whom a declaration has
been made under rule 3, shall be eligible for a permanent
appointment on
the occurrence of a vacancy
in
the
specified posts which
may be reserved
for
being filled
from among persons in quasi-permanent service. in accordance with such instructions as may be issued by the GovernorGeneral in this behalf from time to time.
Explanation: -No such declaration shall confer upon
any person a right to claim a permanent appointment to any
post.
(2) Every appomt111g authority shall, from time to time,
after consultation with the appropriate Departmenta1! Promotions Committee. prepare a list, in order of precedence,
of persons in quasi-permanent service who are eligible for
a permainent appointment. Jn
prcpalring such a list, the
appointing authority shall consider both the seniority and
the merit of the Government servants conrerned. All perma-
S.O.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1309
nent appointments which are reserved under sub-rule (1)
under the conUrol of any such appointing ~thority shall
be made in accordance with such list : Provided that the
Government may order that permanent appointment to any
grade or post may be marle purely in order of seniority."
Now, it is beyond dispute and in fact admitted that
the appellalnt held a quasi-permanent stat~s in the grade
of posts known as Public Relations Officers. The order dated
May 23, 1952, stated in clear terms that (i) a declaration
had been issued in respedt of the appellamt in pursuance
0f rr. 3 ai;id 4 of the Temporary Service Rules, (ii) concurrence of the Union Public Service Commission had been
obtained and (iii) the grade of posts in respect of which
the appellant held quasi-permanent status was the Public
Relations Officers' grade. Under r. 4 a declaration issued
under r. 3 shall specify the particular post or the particular
grades of posts within a cadre in respect of which it is issued
and the date from which it takes effect. A 'cadre', according to Fundamental Rule 9(4), means the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit.
Some indication of what is meant by a grade can be obtained from art. 29 of the Civil Service Regulations : that
article states-
"29. Grade and Class-Appointments are said to be in
the same "Class" when they are in the same Department,
and bear the same designation, or have been declared by the
Government of Ind'ia to be in the same class. Appointments
in the same class are sometimes divided into "Grades"
according to pay.
Note: -Appointments do not belong to the same Class
or Grade unless they have been so constituted or recognised
by proper authority. There are no Classes or Grades of Ministerial Officers."
It is, therefore, clear that so far as the posts known as Public
Relations Officers, All India Radio, are concerned, they
formed a grade and the appella111t held a quasi-permanent
status in that grade.
Rule 6(1) of the Temporary Servic~ Rules lays down
1.?58
K, S. Sriniv(J,Ba.n,
v.
!Union of In4ia
,</, K. Da• J.
1o:;s
K. 8. Srin;vMa.n
v.
Tlnion of India
S. K. Da8 J.
13.IO
SUPHEME COUHT HEPOHTS
[1958]
how the service of a Government servant in quasi-permanent
service can be terminated. We are concerned in this case
with cl. (ii) of the said rule. That clause says that the service of a Government servant in quasi-permanent service
can be terminated "when the appointing authority concerned ha:s certified that a reduction has occurred in the number
of posts available for Government servants not in permanent
service". Learned counsel for the appellant has very strongly
submitted that there was no reduction within the meaning
of the clause in the present case, far Jess any certificJation
of such reduction. Learned counsel for the respondent has
urged with equal vehemence that there was a· reduction
within the meaning of the clause and the appointing authority had certified such reduction.
Before considering the true scope and effect bf the
relevant clause, it is necessary to say a few words about the
Temporary Service Rules. At the same time the Rules were
published, Government also issued a memorandum explanatory of the Rules. It wa:s therein stated that the term 'quasipermanent' service had been evolved with the object of
attaching certain benefits to such service and with regard
to r. 4(a) the memorandum stated-"Under Rule 4(a) a Government servant has to be declared as quasi-permanent in
respect of a particular post; sudh a post may be an isolated
one or it may be a post in a cadre consisting of several
posts. In ca'Se where a cadre is split up into several grades
it may belong to one such grade within the cadre. A Government servant who is declared as quasi-permanent in respect of a particular post may be shifted from one post to
another within the cadre or grade conoerned due to reduction in post or other causes. Such shifting d'oes not affect
liis rights." As to r. 6(1) the memorandum gave the following explanation: This rule relates to the security of tenure of
a quasi-permanent Government servant. It should be noted
that except in the event of :·educti.on in the number of posts
in the cadre or grade concerned, the termination of service
of a quasi-permanent Government servant will have to be
S.C.R
SUPRT~lVJE COUR'l' REPORTS
1311
made in the same man~er as the case of permanent Government servant. For example, if the services are to be terminated on grounds of indiscipline or inefficiency, it will be necessary to institute formal proceedings against him. He has
also got a superior right of retention in service over that
of purely temporary employees, in the grade in which he "!s
quasi-permanent.
The question before us is whether the impugned order
of September 7, 1955, was in consonance with r. 6(1). This
question has two aspects-first, the true scope and effect of
cl. (ii) and second, the effect of the proviso thereto.
We
take up first cl. (ii). Was there a reduction in the present
case within the meaning of cl. (ii)? We think that the answer
must be in the affirmative. In the order dated December 14,
1953, which was an order in favour of the appellant, it was
clearly stated that in August 1952, all the posts of Public
Relations Officers, except the one in the External Services
Division, were held in abeyance. In the impugned order of
September 7, 1955, it was stated that in 1952 all the posts
of Public Relations Officers excepting one in the External
Services Division were held in abeyance alS a measure of
economy and the only post that survived the economy drive
was assigned. to a permanent incumbent. In his representation dated July 10, 1953, the appeMant himself admitted
tha:t as per Director General, All India Radio's memorandum dated May 21, 1953, he was informed that "it was
decided to keep the post in abeyance". Learned counsel for
the appellant has sought to draw a distinction between 'keeping aJ post in ~beyance' and 'reducing a post' and has suggested that the latter expression means abolishing a post
permanently or temporarily whereas the former expression
merely suggests not filling the post for the time being.· Words
and phrases necessarily take their meaning from the context
in which they aire used . .In cl. (ii) the expression used is
"reduction ....... .'. in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service." Learned counsel
for the respondent has rightly pointed out that the entire
19/il
K. S. Srinivasa•
v.
Union of India
S. K. DaaJ,
19/iS
K. 8. Srini'IJMa.n
v.
fl'llion of India
S. K. TJasJ.
1312
SUPREME COUR1' REPORTS
[tn58]
clause should be read to understand what is meant by
reduction, and in that context, reduction is not necessarily
confined to abolition, permanent or otherwise. He has given
an illustration to clarify the meaning. Assume that the
permanent holder of a post goes on deputation; the post
then becomes avail~ble for temporary or quasi-permanent
officers. When, however, the permanent man returns from
deputation, there is a reduction in the num_ber of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service. We
agree with learned counsel for the respondent that the word
reduction in the context of cl. (ii) is not necessarily confined
to abolition, and keeping certain posts in abeyance comes
within the expression. It may be further pointed out that in
the order of September 7. 1955, it was clearly stated that
Government had no intention of reviving the posts of Public
Relations Officers kept in abeyance since 1952; therefore,
for all practi~al purposes the posts have been abolished.
We do not think that there is any charm in the word
'certifies' which occurs in cl. "(ii). It is clear that the appellant was informed, as far back as May, 1953, by a memorandum from the appointing authority that it was decided
to keep the post (which the appellant held) in abe)lance.
There is nothing in the clause which prevents the appointing
authority from certifying by means of a memorandum instead
of by a mere formal order.
Now, we come to the far more imporllant question of
the effect of the proviso to cl. (ii\. The crucial point in that
connection is whether the post of Assistant Station Director,
to which the appellant was appointed in a purely temporary
caipacity on September 13, 1952, was a post within the same
grade or cadre as the posts of Public Relations Officer. If
it is in the same grade or within the same cadre, the appellant will retain his quasi-permanent status and the shifting,
to use the words of the explanatory memorandum quoted
earlier, will not affect his rights. This point has caused us
considerable anxiey, and on a very careful consideration we
hav~ reluctantly but ineluctably come to the conclusion that
S.C.R.
SUPREME COUHT R~PORTS
the post of Assistant Station Director is not in the same
grade or oadre as the posts of Public Relations Officers.
On this point it is necess~ry to refer to some earlier
history regarding the reorganisatibn of the All India Radio
in 1944.