P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an application by Satya Ranjan Das Gupta under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging his order of discharge from his service as a clerk in the post office. The order of discharge was made on the 9th January, 1953, in the following terms:- "Sri Satya Ranjan Das Gupta, Temporary clerk, Nadia Division and Offg. clerk, Purbasthali is discharged from service with immediate effect. He should be given one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice." This order was signed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nadia Division.
(2.) The petitioner challenges this order under Article 311 of the Constitution on the ground that he has been removed without a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such removal. The defence is that the discharge in this case was not by way of punishment but under the terms and conditions of temporary service. On behalf of the Government, reliance is placed on Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, which reads as follows:- "3. A Government servant shall be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service:- (i) If he has been in continuous Government service for more than three years, and (ii) if the appointing authority, being satisfied as to suitability in respect of age, qualifications, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to that effect," etc. It is contended on behalf of the Government that no declaration has been issued in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) It may be useful to recount shortly the facts on which the petitioner makes his case. According to him, he has been in service for a period of six years when he was discharged. Although he was appointed as a temporary clerk and officiating clerk, he says, he was on the 9th March, 1951, asked to appear before the Civil Surgeon Nadia to obtain a certificate of medical fitness with a view to issuing a declaration of quasi-permanent appointment, but that declaration was never issued. In fact, he was never declared to belong to the quasi-permanent service. His grievance is that although he passed the medical examination, he was not declared quasi-permanent, although others who passed such medical examination had been so declared. It is however, not admitted that declarations have been issued in favour of all the candidates who passed the medical examinations.;