Judgment

A.C. GUPTA, J. :- The appellant was appointed to the temporary post of caretaker in the Geological Survey of India by an order dated April 4, 1963.

The order which was signed by the Director of Administration, Geological Survey of India, begins with the following words :

"The Director General, Geological Survey of India hereby appoints........."

It is accepted by both sides that the appointment had been made by the Director-General, Geological Survey of India. The order of appointment stated that the "appointee was to be on trial for a period of 2 years and his retention in the post for further period will be subject to the assessment of his work during the trial period". It appears that the appellant continued to work till January 25, 1966 when he received a notice terminating his service as caretaker, Geological Survey of India, Northern Region, from the date of expiry of one calendar month from the date on which the notice was served on him. The notice of termination was issued on the signature of Shri G. K. Moghe, Director of Administration. As the appellant did not give up charge of his office even on the expiry of the said period of one month, he was relieved of his charge by an order dated February 24, 1966.

2. The appellant challenged both the notice of termination as well as the subsequent order relieving him of his charge by a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). A learned Judge of the said High Court by his judgment and order dated December 12, 1968 allowed the petition and quashed the orders complained of on the view that the Director of Administration on whose signature the notice of termination was issued was not the competent authority to make that order. On appeal preferred by the Union of India, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision and dismissed the writ petition holding that the Director of Administration was competent to terminate the service of the appellant.

3. The impugned notice of termination was issued under Rule 5 (1) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary service) Rules, 1965 which is in these terms:

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

It is not claimed that the appellant was in quasi-permanent service. The learned single Judge had held that the notice given by the Director of Administration was invalid because he was not the appointing authority. "Appointing authority has been defined in Rule 2 (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service ) Rules, 1965 as follows: ...

" Appointing authority means, in relation to a specified post the authority declared as such, under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965;"

"Specified post" has also been defined in clause (c) of Rule 2 as meaning the particular post, or the particular grade of posts within a cadre, in respect of which a Government servant is declared to be quasi-permanent under Rule 3. It thus appears that the expression "appointing authority" as defined in Rule 2 (a) applies only in relation to specified posts and will not apply to the case of the appellant who did not hold a specified post . The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition relied on the definition of appointing authority in Rule 2 (a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.That definition is as follows:

"(a) appointing authority in relation to a Government servant means -

(i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the service of which the Government servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the service in which the Government servant is for the time being included, or

(ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government servant for the t