Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court at the admission stage, directed that the present writ petition be heard by a larger Bench because they felt doubts about the views expressed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No 74 of 1972 decided on 31st March, 1972.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed by 65 persons. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 29 were employed as Taqavi Amins, while petitioners Nos 30 to 65 were employed as Peons attached to the Taqavi Amins. Subsequent to the institution of the writ petition, some more persons were added as petitioners. They also fall in one or the other of the two categories. The petitioners were appointed temporarily in stop gap arrangements. In August, 1971, the Director of Agriculture issued a circular letter to all the Collectors of the State laying down certain principles upon which the services of such Amins and Peons could be terminated. Paragraph 1 of that circular instructed the Collector to terminate the services of those Amins and the staff, whose recovery in the year 1970-71 had been less than Rs. 5,000/-. It was also stated that such employees will not be re-employed when recovery is commenced again. In writ petition No. 74 of 1972, decided on 31st March, 1972 referred to by the Bench admitting the present writ petition, a learned Single Judge held that the preceding and attending circumstances of the order of termination led to the conclusion that the order was passed by way of punishment. Against that decision, a Special Appeal No. 475 of 1972, State of U.P. v. Kanhaiya Lal and others) was filed by the State. That Special Appeal was decided by a Division Bench on 20th October, 1972. It did not enter into the question whether the order of termination was in law an order passed by way of punishment. The Bench held that the condition in the circular that the employees whose services were terminated because they failed to reach the target of Rs 5,000/-. will not be re employed, made the order one of punishment within meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The order of termination though innocuous on its face, was coupled with a condition disqualifying tho .e employees from re-employment. That was in accordance with the provisions of Rules 47 and 49 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, virtually an order of dismissal from service. On this ground, the order was held to be one, which was tantamount to dismissal within meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. Since compliance of sub Article (2) of that Article was not made, the order of termination was bad and was liable to be quashed on that ground.
(3.) In our opinion, the same position obtains in the present case. The impugned orders were undeniably passed in pursuance of the circular issued by the Director of Agriculture. The orders, though couched in an innocent language, carries with them a condition that the petitioners will not be re-employed. This in law amounts to the dismissal of the petitioners. It is well-settled that Article 311 of the Constitution applies equally to temporary Government servants The orders impugned in the present writ petition contravene Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and are as such void.;