- (1.) In this appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in a writ proceeding which was registered as Civil Rule No. 4321 (W) of 1970. In that proceeding the Appellant unsuccessfully challenged an order of termination of his service under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), dated June 24, 1970, passed by the Director of Field Publicity, Government of India.
(2.) The Appellant's case shortly was that the Director of Field Publicity by an order dated November 3, 1965, appointed him to the post of Field Publicity Officer in the Five Year Plan Publicity Mobile Unit under the Directorate of Publicity in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. Though the post to which he was appointed was temporary, it was likely to continue and on the terms of his appointment he was to serve a trial period of 2 years from the date of his appointment. He joined the post on such appointment on November 8, 1965 and completed successfully two years period of trial on November 8, 1967 and was allowed to continue in the post until July 6, 1970, when he was served with the impugned order of termination dated June 24, 1970. The order recited: In pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I hereby give notice ' to Shri A.K. Mukherjee, Field Publicity Officer, Barrackpore, that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him.
(3.) The main ground on which the Appellant challenged the aforesaid order of termination in his writ petition was to the effect that he having completed more than 3 years' service had acquired or was legally entitled to acquire quasi-permanent status under Rule 3 of the Rules, as aforesaid, so that there could be no termination of his service under Rule 5 thereof. It was claimed that such termination was illegal and without jurisdiction and was violative of the Appellant's rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. According to the Appellant, further, even if he had not acquired the quasi-permanent status, since an obligation arose in law upon the Respondents to give him such a status there arose an equity in his favour on which he could rest his claim.;