Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- This appeal, by special leave, by the appellant-State is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, dated March 4, 1968 in Civil Rule No. 206 of 1967 (reported in AIR 1969 Assam 3) by which the High Court quashed an order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagaland, dated February 10, 1967 terminating the services of the respondent as an Assistant Teacher with effect from April 1, 1967.

2. The respondent was appointed by an order of the Chief Secretary of Nagaland, dated October 23, 1962 as an Assistant Teacher and she was posted in Zunheboto Government High School. The category of the post to which she was appointed was Class III (Non-Gazetted). By an order dated February 16, 1967 of the Deputy Director of Education, Nagaland, the services of the respondent as Assistant Teacher were terminated with effect from April 1, 1967.

3. The respondent filed Civil Rule No. 206 of 1967 in the High Court of Assam and Nagaland for quashing the order dated February 16, 1967 terminating her services. According to her she had served as a teacher for a period of five years and she was fairly high in the Seniority List and that her work has been completely free from any blemish. While so, without giving any reason her services had been terminated arbitrarily and illegally. She also pleaded that by virtue of the order dated November 10, 1966 of the State Government, her services as well as the post which she held had both been made permanent. It was her further case that she had been appointed by the Chief Secretary of the Government, while the order of termination was by a subordinate officer, viz., the Deputy Director of Education. On these grounds the respondent pleaded that the order terminating her services was illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice and there had been a breach of the provision of Article 311.

4. The State of Nagaland, the appellant, controverted the claim of the respondent that her services had been made permanent and that there had been a violation of Article 311. On the other hand, the State pleaded that the respondent had been appointed on a purely temporary basis to a temporary post and, according to the terms and conditions governing the appointment, her services could be terminated by giving one month s notice. The order of termination fully satisfies this requirement. The State further pleaded that the services of the respondent had never been made permanent. The Deputy Director of Education, who was exercising the powers of the Head of the Department was fully competent to pass the order in question. In view of these circumstances, the State pleaded that Article 311 of the Constitution did not apply and that the order of termination was valid.

5. Before the High Court the respondent raised two contentions both related to Article 311 and they were (1) that as the respondent had been appointed by the Chief Secretary to Government, the order of termination by a subordinate authority was in violation of Article 311 and therefore void; and (2) though initially she was appointed on a temporary basis, later on the post which she held as well as her services, had both been made permanent and therefore the order of termination, without complying with the requirements of Article 311, was void.

6. The High Court has substantially accepted both the above contentions. It has taken the view that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to terminate the services of the respondent as her appointment was by the Chief Secretary to the Government. Even though there may have been a delegation of powers to the Deputy Director of Education, the High Court s view is that the said officer has no authority to pass an order of termination as that will be depriving the respondent of her rights under Article 311. The High Court, relying upon the Circular, dated November 10, 1966 of the Government, has further held that the services of the respon