- (1.)THIS and other petitions Nos. 22, 30, 32, 37, 39 and 40 of 1953 involve the same questions. All these aforesaid petitions are submitted by the several petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or certiorari and for a decision that the order of the Government of Madhya Bharat, dated 16 December 1952, issued against them directing their removal from the judicial service of the State to be of no effect and that they still continue in the service of the State.
(2.)I consider it convenient to consider the case of the petitioner Vijay Shankar for the decision of the questions involved in all these petitions, because after these questions are decided with reference to this petition that decision could be applied to other cases, although there may be some variation as regards some facts not material for the present purpose.
(3.)PETITIONER Vijay Shankar set forth in his petition that he had been in the service of Rajgarh State of Central India, prior to the integration of that State into Madhya Bharat, as a judicial officer on the post of a munsif-magistrate; that after the formation of Madhya Bharat and integration of Rajgarh State therein on 30 June 1948, the petitioner continued to function as a munsif-magistrate at Talen in Madhya Bharat till 31 March 1949; that in the process of integration he was posted as a munsif with second-class magisterial powers and was posted at Bhilsa where he took charge on 2 April 1949 and was later transferred to Chanderi in the same capacity where he worked till 31 May 1952; that in the fourth week of May 1952 the petitioner received an order No. 7849-7988, dated 20 May 1952, from the Registrar, High Court, directing him to band over the charge of his office to the bead clerk in the afternoon of 31 May 1952 and that later on 8 January 1953 he received an order intimating to him his removal from service from 1 June 1952 and providing that he would be entitled to the benefit of leave due to him and other rights as to pension and gratuity but stating no reason for such removal whatsoever, that a Government notification No. 296 (5) J-95-4-/52, dated 16 December 1952, regarding the removal of the petitioner along with other judicial officers in the State was published in the Gazette, dated 19 December 1952, and that the petitioner thereupon made demand of justice against his sudden and unexpected removal from service but failed to get redress.
;