B S BIRTHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against two orders, one dated 31st October 1964 whereby the Inspector General of Prisons terminated the petitioner's services as an assistant jailor and another dated. 10th November 1964 by which the Divisional Forest Officer declined to take him back as a lower division clerk on the ground that he had no lien on that post.

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this petition may be shortly stated. By an order dated 30 August 1954, the petitioner was appointed a lower division clerk in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Indore. By another order dated 26 July 1956, he was confirmed on that post with effect from the same day. In course of time, he was transferred to the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Indore, where he was working as Camp Clerk. While he was so employed, he was allowed to apply for the post of an assistant jailor. After the usual interview, he was selected for the post and appointed temporarily until further orders as officiating assistant jailor in the Central Jail, Rajpur. In pursuance of this order dated 5 december 1962, he joined his duties on 18 December 1962. It transpired that, at rajpur, he developed pulmonary tuberculosis and had to proceed on long leave. Although he recovered in the sense that his lungs were clear and he had resumed his duties also, he was still weak. Therefore, when he was subsequently transferred to the Training Centre, Central Jail, Jabalpur, and he took charge of that post on 22 October 1964, he had to make a request that he should be given only table work. He was then put on the sick list and, by the impugned order dated 31 October 1964, his services were terminated "as no longer required". A copy of that order was sent to the Chief Conservator of Forests as well as to the divisional Forest Officer, Indore, with the intimation that the petitioner's services were replaced at the disposal of the Forest Department where he had a lien on the post formerly held by him. However, he was not taken back by that department because, by the impugned order dated 10 November 1964, the Divisional Forest officer, Indore, took the view that the petitioner, who had voluntarily undertaken not to claim lien on any post in the Forest Department, had no right of reappointment on the post formerly held by him. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to various authorities, but he did not get any redress of his grievances. As a last resort, he has moved this Court for relief.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel, we have reached the conclusion that this petition must be allowed. So far as the challenge to the order of the Inspector General of prisons, is concerned, it must fail. The petitioner was appointed "temporarily until further orders as officiating assistant jailor" on the condition that "the appointment is liable to be terminated without notice". There is nothing in the order or elsewhere to show that the petitioner's services were terminated as a measure of punishment. A person holding a post temporarily or officiating in it, until further orders has no right to hold that post and if his services are terminated or he is reverted to the post formerly held by him, there is, without more, no punishment because this could be done under the very condition of his appointment: State of bombay v. F. A. Abraham, AIR 1962 SC 794; Divisional Personnel Officer, southern Railway, Mysore v. S. Raghavendrachar, AIR 1966 SC 1529 and Hartwell prescott Singh v. U. P. Government, AIR 1957 SC 886. In our opinion, the order of termination of the petitioner's services as officiating assistant jailor is not assailable as offending Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.