- (1.) THIS rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner inter alia for quashing an order of reversion of the petitioner to-Ms substantive post. The facts set out by the petitioner are substantially as follows : -
(2.) THE petitioner while working as an Assistant in the scale of pay of rs. 130-300j- in the office of the Chief inspector of Explosives in India, Department of Explosives, Government of india at Nagpore was selected to a post of Higher Grade Clerk (Steno-typist on deputation under the andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration on certain terms and conditions contained in a memorandum dated 29th April, 1964 (marked as annexure A to the petition ). One of such terms was that the deputation was to last for a period of 3 years. By an office order dated 22nd April, 1964 the petitioner was relieved of his duties in the office of the Chief Inspector of Explosives with effect from the afternoon of 22nd april, 1964. The petitioner eventually joined the said post of Higher Grade clerk|steno-typist at Andaman on. 12th may, 1964. Then by another office order dated 9th June, 1964 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Chief commissioner, Andaman and Nicobar islands terms of the employment of the petitioner on deputation were set out which inter alia provided that deputation period would be for a period of 3 years in the first instance; with effect from the forenoon of 23-4-64. Soon after the petitioner joined the said post he was elected as President of non-Gazetted Government Officers association, Andaman and Nicobar islands, recognised by the Government of India. The respondents, it is alleged, did not like the activities f the association as it was bringing to the notice of the Government of India many cases of injustice done to the non-Gazetted Government Servants by the local Administration. This Association took up certain issues regarding special pay, leave for passage and other benefits of the employees and decided to file a suit in this Court. The petitioner pursuant to such decision of the association applied fon leave on llth September, 1964 to the respondent No. 3. Almost immediately thereafter the respondent No. 2 by an order dated 14th September, 1964 suddenly reverted the petitioner to his substantive post in the office of the chief Inspector of Explosives at Nagpur with effect from the date of his sailing by M. V. Andamans ex-port Blair on or about 25-9-1964. Thereafter, in spite of repeated representation and appeals this order was not withdrawn and the leave asked for was also not granted. The petitioner in obedience to this order had to hand over the charge and leave Andaman on 2nd october, 1964. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and came up to this Court and obtained a rule.
(3.) ALTHOUGH several grounds were taken but the order of, reversion was challenged by Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, before me on twofold grounds. First is that since the petitioner was employed on deputation for a period of three years he could not have been reverted to the substantive post in breach of such terms. The other ground is that the order of reversion was made by way of punishment without complying with the provisions of the article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, such order was totally invalid and ineffective, Before i take up these grounds for consideration it is noticed that the period of petitioner's employment on deputation was only to last for three years under the terms and conditions of such employment with effect from 23-4-64. So, after the expiry of that period it cannot be said that the petitioner had any right to continue in that post on deputation at Andaman. The only consequence is that even assuming, that there is any substance in the ground taken by the petitioner, the writ he has sought for from this Court would be ineffective due to the expiry of the stipulated period of his employment. It is well settled that it is not the practice of this Court in writ jurisdiction to issue a futile writ. See the case of (1) Guruswami v. State of Mysore, reported in A. I. R. 1954 S. C. , 592. In this rule there was no interim injunction given to the petitioner restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order. Since, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, this rule has become infructuous. In the above view of the matter, it is unnecessary to enter into the above two grounds taken by the petitioner. Even so, I will deal with them on merits.;