Judgment

Bose J.- This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which the petitioner seeks redress for what, according to him, is a breach of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. It was argued at considerable length by the petitioner in person. Then, when our judgment was nearly ready, he put in a petition asking for a rehearing and for permission to file some fresh papers. When that was refused he came again on another day and asked for leave to engage an agent and appear through counsel as he felt he had not been able to do justice to his case in person. (It may be mentioned that though he had originally engaged an agent he dismissed him before the hearing when he appeared in person.) We granted his request and counsel reargued the case for him but has not carried the matter any further. The facts are these.

2. In October 1945 the petitioner was employed by the Government of India on a five year contract in the Directorate-General of Resettlement and Employment of the Ministry of Labour. This was after selection by the Federal Public Service Commission. After a short period of practical training, he was posted in January 1946 at Jabalpur as the Manager of the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange and was later confirmed in this appointment.

3. This contract of service was due to expire in 1950. Shortly before its expiration the Government of India made him a new offer, embodied in its letter dated 30-6-1950, to continue him in service on the expiry of his contract on the terms specified in that letter. Among them were the following :

"(3) Other conditions of service:--On the termination of your contract you will be allowed to continue in your post temporarily for the period of the Resettlement and Employment Organisation and will be governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 unless you are a permanent Government servant."

He was asked in the letter to intimate to the Ministry of Labour whether he was willing to continue in service on those terms and he admit that he accepted the offer and continued in service. He was not a permanent Government servant though it was contended in argument that he was, for he was on a five year contract and the work for which he was employed, namely, Resettlement and Employment, was itself only of a temporary character. Therefore, the Temporary Service Rules applied.

Of those Rules, R. 5 is material. It runs as follows :

"5. (a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant.

(b) The period of such notice shall be one month, unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant."

4. Quasi-permanent service is defined in the Rules and it is clear that the petitioner does not come within that class. It is also an undisputed fact that there was no agreement between the petitioner and Government regarding the period of the notice. Therefore, according to this Rule, which was a term in the petitioner s contract of further service, his services were liable to termination at any time by one month s notice in writing. This notice was given on 25-11-1950 and he was told that his services would terminate on the expiry of one month from 1-12-1950.

5. A large field was covered in the course of the arguments, and had the matter not been reargued we would, for the petitioner s satisfaction, have dealt with the contentions raised more fully than will be necessary now that counsel has appeared.

6. The petition is under Art. 32 (1) of the Constitution and so it must be shown that a fundamental right has been infringed. It was argued that the rights infringed are the ones conferred by Arts. 14 and 16 (1).

7. Taking Art. 14 first, it must be shown that the petitioner has been discriminated against in the exercise of e