Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal arising from a writ petition filed by a temporary Editor in the Publications Division of the Department of Information and Broadcasting. The appellant had been appointed temporarily as Editor in 1956 after selection by the Union Public Service Commission, with the post sanctioned only until 28 February 1957. After probation extensions, termination and subsequent rescission, he continued in a temporary capacity. On 16 February 1959, the President promulgated the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, creating a new service with prescribed grades. Rule 5 provided for initial constitution through selection of departmental candidates. The appellant appeared before a Selection Committee and was appointed substantively to Grade III and posted as Assistant Editor by order dated 10 March 1960. He made representations against this, alleging demotion; the last representation was rejected in December 1962. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the order and a consequential mandamus. A Single Judge of the Punjab High Court allowed the petition, relying on Moti Ram Deka, holding that Article 311 was attracted because prospects and emoluments were adversely affected. The Division Bench reversed this, holding that the rules created a new service and there was no violation of Article 311; it granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the rules merely transferred existing employees to corresponding posts, that the impugned order caused reduction in rank, and that he was a victim of bias. The Union of India submitted that the post of Editor had ceased to exist, the rules created a new service with a fair selection procedure, and Article 311 did not apply to entry into a new service. The Court reasoned that Article 311 and Rule 5 operated in different fields; the new service had a fair and reasonable entry procedure and was not a device to defeat constitutional protection. The appellant had no right to continue in the temporary post, and the order did not on its face show demotion as punishment. The Selection Committee could assign grades based on merits, and the definition of departmental candidate did not fetter it. No violation of Articles 14 or 16 was found, especially as maximum pay in the grade was recommended. The Court also held that allegations of mala fides against an unnamed officer could not be tried without impleading him. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Division Bench.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 311 - Reduction in Rank - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311 - The appellant held a temporary post of Editor with no right to continue, and was selected and appointed as Assistant Editor in Grade III of the newly constituted Central Information Service. The impugned order did not show demotion as punishment, and termination of officiating appointment followed by fresh appointment with permanent tenure and prospects did not violate Article 311. Held that Article 311 was not attracted. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Constitution of New Service - Central Information Service Rules, 1959, Rule 5 - The rules created an altogether new service with a fair and reasonable procedure for entry through a Selection Committee. This procedure could not be characterized as a device to defeat Article 311 or a fraud upon the Constitution merely because a candidate's expectations were not met. Held that the fields of operation of Article 311 and Rule 5 are quite different and distinct. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Service Law - Departmental Candidates and Selection Committee - Central Information Service Rules, 1959, Rules 2(b) and 5 - The definition of 'departmental candidates' in Rule 2(b) was only an aid in interpreting Rule 5 and did not fetter the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee could assign different grades to departmental candidates, and the post held before selection did not automatically determine grade. Held that appraisement of merits on the totality of relevant facts was valid. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Equality and Equal Opportunity - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16 - The appellant's appointment to Grade III after selection did not violate Articles 14 and 16 simply because the process did not affect others similarly; the Selection Committee considered his individual case and recommended maximum pay in the class and grade. Held no violation of Articles 14 or 16. (Paras Not mentioned) E) Administrative Law - Mala Fides in Writ Proceedings - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Allegations of bias by an unnamed officer in the Transport Ministry could not be properly tried in writ proceedings without impleading that official. Held that such allegations were not entertained. (Paras Not mentioned) F) Procedural Law - Additional Affidavit - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The additional affidavit filed by the respondent clarifying that the post of Editor had ceased to exist did not introduce anything new and the question was already before the court. The appellant never sought an opportunity to meet any allegation. Held that no prejudice was caused. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 created a new service or merely transferred existing employees; whether the impugned order posting the appellant as Assistant Editor in Grade III constituted reduction in rank or punishment under Article 311; whether the selection procedure violated Articles 14 and 16; whether allegations of mala fides could be tried without impleading the concerned officer; whether the additional affidavit introduced new matters.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, held no violation of Articles 14, 16, and 311. Central Information Service Rules, 1959 created a new service with fair selection procedure. Appellant had no right to continue in temporary officiating post, and posting as Assistant Editor with permanent tenure and prospects did not amount to reduction in rank. Allegations of mala fides were not entertained.
Law Points
- Article 311 applies to punishment or reduction in rank of government servants holding a right to the post
- while Rule 5 of Central Information Service Rules
- 1959 provides entry into a new service
- fields are distinct
- new service with fair selection procedure is not a device to defeat Article 311
- temporary post holder has no right to continue
- selection committee can assign grades based on merits
- departmental candidate definition in Rule 2(b) is not a fetter
- no violation of Articles 14 and 16
