Writ Petn. No. 4364 of 1968. Case: Verghese George Vs The Officer Commanding, T.T.W.A.F. Station Yalahanka, Bangalore North. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petn. No. 4364 of 1968 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M. Balachandran, Adv. and For Respondents: B.S. Keshava Iyengar, Central Govt. Pleader |
| Judges | A. Narayana Pai and C. Honniah, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 - Rule 5(1); Constitution of India - Articles 16 and 311 |
| Citation | AIR 1970 Kant 302, AIR 1970 Mys 302, (1970) 2 MysLJ 55 |
| Judgement Date | June 16, 1970 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Judgment:
Narayana Pai, J.
-
The petitioner who was working as a civilian motor transport driver attached to the Airforce Station at Yelahanka, was served with a notice dated 11-11-1968, issued by the Officer Commanding the Station, under Rule 5 (I) (a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, terminating his services with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service or tender of the notice. The petitioner impugns the validity of the said notice, and contends that it is illegal as well as violative of his fundamental rights under the Constitution and that therefore, it should be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ.
-
That the petitioner was entertained as a temporary Government servant is an admitted fact. It is also admitted that though he had completed four and a half years of service at the time of notice was issued, he had not been invested with the status of a quasi-permanent Government servant. Although it is a minimum qualification for such a status to complete three years of service, it is well established that unless an express order is made declaring such a status, no temporary Government servant acquires quasi-permanency of service. Hence the petitioner has to be considered only as a temporary Government servant and his rights, if any, allegedly violated by the impugned notice have also to be ascertained on that basis.
-
The rule under which the impugned notice was issued, reads:--
5. (1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant.
** ** **
The rest of the rule is not relevant.
-
The impugned notice reads as follows:
In pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I hereby give notice to Shri Varghese George that his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month the date on which this notice is served, or as the case may be, tendered to him.
-
The arguments in support of the prayer for the issue of a writ are only two,-- (1) that though the notice purports to be One of termination of service under Rule 5 (1) (a) of the rules, it is only a cloak for actual punishment of dismissal without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself against such proposed action; (2) that it violates his fundamental right under Article 16 because, twenty seven persons who were appointed subsequent to himself and therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial