JUDGMENT

BEG, J.:—This Union of India and the Commander, Officer-in-charge, Naval Base, Cochin, are the appellants before us by grant of special leave against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench had affirmed the decision of a learned Judge of the High Court dismissing an appeal from a judgment and decree of a subordinate judge awarding Rs. 25,000/- as damages, together with interest @ 6% per annum, to the plaintiff-respondent for the illegal termination of the respondents services. The plaintiff-respondent was serving as a welder, Grade II, in the Civilian Defence Forces at the Naval Base, Cochin, at the time of this allegedly illegal termination of service by an order of 25th October, 1968, of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence.

2. Special leave was granted on condition that the appellant will bear the costs of the respondent in any event. The point of law sought to be canvassed before us is : Does the doctrine that a Central Govt. servant holds his post "at the pleasure of the President", contained in Article 310 of the Constitution, authorise the passing of an order of termination of services, without assigning any reason whatsoever of the holder of a post "connected with defence"?

3. There is no finding anywhere that the services of the plaintiff-respondent were terminated as a measure of punishment for any wrong done by him or for incompetence, although, a perusal of the pleadings would show that the appellants denied the assertions of the plaintiff-respondent that he was efficient and entitled to promotions as he had qualified for them by passing certain tests.

4. The Subordinate Judge had awarded only Rs. 25,000/-, out of a claim of Rs. 75,000/- made on the ground that, but for illegal termination of the service of the plaintiff-respondent, the plaintiff would have continued in service upto the age of 60 years and duly promoted instead of being thrown out of service at the age of 41. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that the termination of his service, without giving any reason whatsoever, was contrary to rules made under Article 309. A glance at paragraph 4 of the plaint shows that the violation of rules relating to conduct of disciplinary proceedings was alleged by the petitioner. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, however, he alleged :

"As per the terms of appointment and the rules governing the service of the petitioner, he is entitled normally to continue in service till the age of 60. If his service had not been terminated as per the impugned order, the petitioner would have been entitled to continue for a further period of 19 years and 8 months."

He proceeded to assert :

"Due to the illegal termination, the petitioner had lost a valuable right vested in him by virtue of his appointment and guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the rules framed thereunder namely a right to continue in service for the full period of 19 years and 8 months and thus to gain a livelihood for himself and his family."

5. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench shows that the only point really considered by it was whether the pleasure of the President mentioned in Article 310 of the Constitution, can override rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution.

6. The High Court had explained away a passage cited from State of U. P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 by observing that it did not support the argument that rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution did not control the pleasure of the President, under Article 310, which was to be subject to matters otherwise expressly provided in the Constitution. The passage so explained away runs as follows :

"If there is a specific provision in some part of the Constitution giving to a Government servant a tenure different from that provided for in Article 310, that Government servant is excluded from the operation of Art. 310. The said words refer, inter alia, to Arts. 124, 148, 218 and 324 which provide that the Judges of t