- (1.) Syed Mohd. Hashimi, Om Prakash Yadava, and Krishna Kumar Srivastava were appointed as Junior Clerks in 1971 in the Marketing Section of the Food and Civil Supplies Department in Kanpur Region, while Kesho Ram was appointed Peon in the same Department. All the four petitioners continued in service as temporary Government servants. In 1973, the petitioners excepting Kesho Ram, petitioner No. 4. were Dromoted to the post of Senior Accounts Clerks. All the four petitioners were later on transferred to a newlv created region at Jhansi. While they were posted there, the Regional Food Controller. Allahabad Region, Kanpur, issued an order on 30th May, 1974 terminating the services of all the four petitioners. The petitioners challenge the validity of the said order of termination of their services dated 30th Mav. 1974.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that a hostile discrimination was practised against the petitioners as a number of iunior persons were retained in service while the services of the petitioners who were senior to them were terminated. In the counter-affidavit it is asserted that certain temporary posts were abolished in the Department as a result of which retrenchment of junior most incumbents of the Marketing section of the Civil Supplies Department became necessarv. Consequently two Accountants were reverted to the post of Senior Accounts Clerks and two persons were reverted as Junior Accounts Clerks and in that chain the services of Junior- Accounts Clerks were terminated forthwith on account of non-availability of post. With regard to the allegation of discrimination, it is asserted in the counter-affidavit that those persons who were junior to the petitioners but who belonged to the schedule caste were retained in service with a view to make up the deficiency in their reserved auota. The assertions contained in the counter-affidavit show that reservation in favour of scheduled caste candidates was made in making the appointments. On the abolition of posts when the auestion of termination of junior most employees was taken for consideration the petitioners' services were terminated although those who were retained were junior to them merely because the iunior persons belonged to the scheduled caste and their retention in service was considered necessary to make up the deficiency in the reserved auota.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the procedure adopted by the Department was not permissible in law. The reservation in favour of scheduled caste employees could be legally made at the time of initial appointment but no reservation could be made at the time of termination of employment. The respondents' action in retaining the junior employees belonging to the scheduled caste in service violated the guarantee of equality as enshrined in Art. 16 of the Constitution. He placed reliance on Sudama Prashad V/s. Divisional Superintendent Western Railway, Kota, 1965 AIR(Raj) 109 in support of his contention that the petitioners services could not legally be terminated for accommodating junior persons in service even though they belonged to scheduled caste. I have considered the question, but I find no substance in the contention.. Article 16 lays down equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to an office under the State. Clause (2) lavs down that no discrimination in respect of any employment or office in the State shall be made on the ground of race, religion, caste or sex or place of residence.. The expression "in matters relating to employment or appointment" is wide enough to include initial recruitment, promotion and; termination of employment. In P. K. More v. Union of India, 1959 AIR(Bom) 134 a Division Bench held that the expression; "matters relating to employment" was hot confined to the initial stage of recruitment, instead it applies all along during the continuance or engagement in office and the citizen is ensured of that equality of opportunity and the same principles must govern the case when the appointment or employment is sought to be terminated. The Bench repelled the contention that Article 16 was not applicable to termination of employment.;