- (1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) It is not denied that the petitioner, after selection by the U.P. Public Service Commission, underwent training and then joined his duties as Trade Tax Officer/ Sales Tax Office Grade II on 5.4.1998 in the Office of the respondent No. 2 and was continuing in that service when the impugned orders, namely, the order dated 2.9.1998 issued by the State Government (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and the order dated 26.9.1998 issued by the Trade Tax Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) were passed. By the aforesaid impugned orders, passed after the petitioner had started working in the Trade Tax Department of the U.P. Government, he was asked to change the service cadre and was directed to join the State Civil Service as Assistant Accounts Officer which is a distinct and separate service cadre under the said State Government. This action has been sought to be justified by the respondents under the name of reshuffling. It is submitted by the respondents that this reshuffling is done according to the choice given by the candidate at the time of their selection by the Commission and because of the situation created by the reason of non-joining or resignation of certain candidates which requires readjustment of the merit list and the choice of the candidates. The submissions from the side of the respondents are contrary to the basic law.
(3.) Once a civil servant joins his post under the Government, even during the period of probation. Article 311 of the Constitution of India starts applying and the protection recommended by the Article become available. A Government servant acquires the right to the post and he cannot be removed from that post, whether by reason of alleged reshuffling or other reason short of improper performance of duty, in case of probationers, or misconduct in case of confirmed employees.;