N.U. Beg, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition Shri Harcharan Lal was appointed as a Tractor Driver temporarily on the 14th of July 1053 at the-Central Sugarcane Station Lucknow then under the Directorate of Indian Institute of Sugar Technology, situate at Kanpur. On the 1st of January, 1954 the Central Sugarcane Station at Lucknow became a separate department, and came to be known as the Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research under an independent Director. As a result of it, it came directly under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. On the 24th of October, 1960 a declaration was made under Rules 3 and 4 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules) appointing the petitioner as Tractor Driver in a quasi permanent capacity with effect from the 1st of July, 1959. On the 6th of April. 1961 a communication was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture to the Director Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research conveying the sanction of the President to the conversion of one temporary post of tractor driver into a permanent post. It may be mentioned that at that time there were two posts of temporary tractor drivers, one being held by the petitioner and the other being held by one Shri Sarwan Singh. Although Shri Sarwan Singh was junior to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Tractor Driver in a quasi-permanent capacity with effect from the 1st of July, 1958. On the 17th of February, 1962 the Director of Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from the 28th of February, 1962 under rule 5 of the Rules. A copy of the said order is filed as Annexure 3 with the writ petition. A similar order was passed against the other tractor driver Shri Sarwan Singh on the same date. On the 20th of February, 1962 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Director, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research seeking a clarification of the said order. Thereupon, the authorities realised their mistake and passed another order on the 28th February, 1962 by way of corrigendum correcting the previous order of the 17th of February, 1962. This order is Annexure 5 filed with the writ petition. In this order it is stated that the words "under Rule 5" in the order of the 17th of February, 1962 will be substituted by the words "under Rule 6'' in the said order. On the same date they issued a Reduction Certificate as required by Clause (ii) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. On the 27th of February, 1962 the order terminating the services of Sarwan Singh was cancelled and he was reinstated. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the order terminating his services was dismissed on the 3rd of May, 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the order of the termination of his services dated the 17th of February, 1962 and of the rejection of his appeal dated 3rd May, 1962. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated the 17th of February, 1962 terminating the services of the petitioner under Rule 6 is bad as it does not comply with the conditions laid down therein. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 which is the portion relevant for the purposes of the present case lays down as follows :-- "6. (1) The service of a Government servant in a quasi permanent service shall be liable to termination (i) in the same circumstances and in the same manner as a Government servant in permanent service) or (ii) when the appointing authority concerned has certified that a reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service : Provided that the service of a Government servant in quasi permanent service shall not be liable to termination under Clause (ii) so long as any post of the same grade and under the same appointing authority as the specified post held by him, continues to be held by a Government servant not in permanent or quasi-permanent service : Provided further that as among Government servants in quasi-permanent service when specified posts are of the same grade and under the same appointing authority, termination of service consequent on reduction of posts shall ordinarily take place, in order of juniority in the list referred to in rule 7."
(2.) In the first place, the learned counsel has argued that Clause (ii) of Rule 6 (1) cited above shows that before the services of Government servant in a quasi-permanent services are terminated a reduction certificate should be issued by the appointing authority concerned. In the present case it is admitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the order of the termination of services of the petitioner was passed on the 17th of February, 1962. It is further admitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the reduction certificate required under Clause (ii) of Rule 6 (1) was not issued until the 28th of February, 1962. There is, therefore, no doubt that in the present case no reduction certificate existed on the date when the order of termination of services of the petitioner was passed. Clause (ii) of Rule 6 (1) was, therefore, not complied with. It appears to me that the issue of a reduction certificate is a condition precedent to the order of termination of services according to the above provision of law. The use of the word, 'shall' in the opening portion further indicates that the restriction laid down is of an imperative character. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion, the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated the 17th of February, 1962 cannot stand and must be struck down on this ground.
(3.) On behalf of the opposite parties, the learned counsel has argued that the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from the afternoon of 28th February, 1962 and the reduction certificate was issued prior to his handing over the charge in the afternoon of the 28th of February, 1962. This may be so. It appears to me that the date contemplated in Rule 6 is not the date of the handing over of the charge or tbe date from which the services were actually terminated but the date on which the order terminating the services is passed i. e. the date when the services of a Government servant become "liable to termination." The words used in the rule refer to the date on which the services become "liable to termination," and not the date on which the services are actually made to terminate. In other words it is the date on which the authorities make up their mind to terminate the services of the Government servant that can be said to be the date on which the services of the said Govern-ment servant become "liable to termination." The date fixed by the authority terminating the services may be a future date, and the termination order might be made to take effect from that date. In spite of it the date on which the services of the Government servant become "liable to termination" would be the preceding date on which the authority concerned had made up its mind to terminate the services thereby making his services liable to termination.;