- (1.) THE petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Superintendent of Post Offices Kashmir Division dated 21 -10 -59 made under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, whereby the service of the petitioner was sought to be terminated from the forenoon of 24 -11 -1959.
(2.) THE petitioner alleges that he joined duty on 1 -11 -57 as a clerk in the Post Office at Jammu. His work was good and satisfactory except for a small slip he made some time in June 1958. His appointment was against a clear vacancy and was as such of a permanent nature. The respondent, the Superintendent of Post Offices, however, sought to terminate his service with effect from 24 -11 -59 by issuing an order under rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, 1949. These rules did not apply to the petitioner who was a permanent Government servant. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against the termination of his service. This was contrary to the mandatory provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The principles of natural justice have also been grossly violated by the impugned order.
(3.) THE respondent counters these allegations on the ground that the petitioner was only a temporary servant to whom the Temporary Service Rules, 1949, applied. Rule 5 of those rules provided for the termination of the services of a temporary employee by giving him a months notice. The impugned order was, therefore, well -founded. No punitive action was taken against the petitioner;. Art. 311 of the Constitution, therefore, did not come into play, and the petitioners application for writ is misconceived. The first question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner was a temporary servant or not? The affidavit of the Superintendent of Post Offices is unambiguously to the effect that the petitioner was only a temporary servant. This allegation is amply supported by the orders appointing the petitioner as a clerk in the Jammu Post Office. These orders are included in Annexures A and B to the petition. Furthermore, the Gradation, List produced by the respondent bears out that the petitioner was only a temporary clerk; to the same effect is the Service Book relating to the petitioner. What is more, as recently as 8 -11 -59 and 20 -12 -59 the petitioner appeared at the written and oral: "confirmation examination" held in respect of temporary clerks. The affidavit of the Superintendent of Post Offices avers that only temporary postal, clerks can take this examination and that no temporary clerk will be confirmed unless he passes this examination. These averments in the affidavit of the respondent remain thoroughly uncontradicted. There is thus a plethora of evidence to show that the petitioner is only as a temporary clerk. ;