Varadarajan, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 620 of 1969, which had been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned single Judge of that High Court, allowing O. P. No. 672 of 1969. O. P. No. 672 of 1969 was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the termination of the service of the respondent by the appellant by the order dated 17-1-67. That order is to the effect that in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service the respondent stated to be a temporary Ammunition Repair Labourer Grade II, Naval Armaments Depot, Alwaye, is informed that his service is thereby terminated with effect from the date of service of that order on him. That order further states that respondent will be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice, due to him, that is, for one month in accordance with the provisions of the Navy Instruction 22/53, as amended and that the payment of allowances will, however be subject to conditions under which such allowances are admissible.
(2.) The respondent having been recommended by the Employment Exchange, was appointed by the appellant by Ext. P 1 as labourer on casual basis in lieu of Sailor in the Installation Team (I. N. S. Venduruthy) on pay of Rs. 70/- p. m. plus allowances as admissible from time to time for the period of one month in the first instance with effect from the forenoon of 18-12-61. The appellant continued the respondent's employment as Labourer in lieu of Sailor in B. R. O. (Installation) Department, Cochin against some existing vacancy with effect from the forenoon of 18-1-62 by Ext. P 2. When he was casual Labourer in the B. R. O. (Installation) Department he was transferred by the appellant to the Naval Armament Depot, Alwaye and appointed as labourer in the regular cadre in the scale mentioned therein plus allowances as admissible from time to time in an existing vacancy with effect from 15-11-62. Subsequently, when the respondent was working as a labourer in the Naval Armament Depot at Alwaye the appellant promoted him and appointed him as A. R. L. Grade II in the Naval Armaments Depot, Alwaye in the scale mentioned therein plus allowances as admissible from time to time in an existing vacancy with effect from the forenoon of 2-3-64. Thereafter, his services were terminated by Order dated 17-1-67 (Ex. P 8) as mentioned above.
(3.) In the writ petition the respondent attacked the order Ex. P 8 on two grounds, namely, (i) that he was appointed permanently to the post of A. R. L. Grade II by the Order (Ex. P 4) and (2) that persons junior to the respondent have been retained in service and, therefore, the termination of the services of the respondent without any reason whatsoever, is discriminatory and contravenes Article 16 of the Constitution. In the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition the appellant contended that the phraseology "regular cadre" does not imply as it may some other instances in the employment of Government, a substantive post, that the post in the "regular cadre" is also a purely temporary one and that the post of Ammunition Repair Labourer Grade II to which the respondent was promoted and appointed, was also on a temporary basis. The appellant denied that there was any discrimination in the termination of the services of the respondent. The learned single Judge repelled the contention that the respondent had been permanently appointed to the post of ARL Grade II by the Order Ext. P 4 on the ground that there is nothing in the order to show that the respondent had been appointed permanently to the post. Regarding the second ground urged by the respondent the learned single Judge held, relying upon this Court's decision in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854 and two other decisions of the Mysore and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Doddaiah v. State, AIR 1967 Mys 223 and Janikiraman v. State of Andh. Pra., AIR 1959 Andh Pra 185 respectively that Article 16 of the Constitution applies even to temporary Government servants. The learned Judge observed that there is no denial of the fact that persons junior to the respondent have been retained in service and that there is nothing in the order, Ext. P 8 or in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ appeal to show that the respondent was guilty of any misconduct or was otherwise unfit to hold the post. The learned Judge further observed that in para 8 of the counter-affidavit it has only bun stated that the fact other persons who are junior to the respondent are retained in service, would not confer any right on the respondent to continue in service. In this view the learned Judge held that the termination of the respondent's services under Ext. P 6 (sic) without assigning any reason was discriminatory and he accordingly allowed the writ petition without costs. In the writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act the Division Bench followed the aforesaid decision of this Court in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India (supra) and agreed with the learned single Judge that the appellant's action in terminating respondent's services under Ext. P 8 is violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. The learned Judges observed in their judgment that no reason at all was either alleged or proved as to why appellant chose to terminate the respondent's services under Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 such as that it was administratively convenient to do so or that the respondents work or conduct was unsatisfactory or that it was a case of retrenchment and the respondent was chosen as the junior-most person. The learned Judges accordingly dismissed the writ appeal.;