Judgment

GUPTA, J.:- The respondents in all these fourteen appeals, some of which are on certificate and some by special leave. are extra-departmental agents connected with the postal department. Six of these appeals are from the Kerala High Court, seven from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and one from the Orissa High Court. These respondents were either dismissed or removed from service during the period between January 1, 1966 and June 18, 1974, and admittedly the order of dismissal or removal was passed without complying with the provisions of Art 311 (2) of the Constitution. The question in each case is whether the respondent held a civil post as contemplated in Art. 311 of the Constitution; if he did, the dismissal or removal, as the case may be, would be unquestionable invalid for non-compliance with Art. 311 (2).

2. The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by a body of rules called the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the rules) issued under the authority of the Govt. of India. Rule 2(b) of the rules defining "Extra Departmental Agent" includes within the category, among others, Extra Departmental Sub-Postmasters, Extra Departmental Branch Postmasters, Extra Departmental Delivery Agents, and several sections of class IV employees. Eleven of the respondents are extra departmental branch postmasters, one is an extra departmental delivery agent, and two are class IV extra departmental employees. In all these cases the High Courts have found that the respondents held civil posts under the Union of India and the orders terminating their services in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were invalid.

3. This Court in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, (1967) 1 SCR 679 at p. 682 : has explained what a civil post is. In that case the respondent who was a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley was dismissed from service in disregard of the provisions of Article 311 (2). It was held that "having regard to the existing system of his recruitment, employment and functions", he was "a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State", and therefore entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2). This Court observed:

"................a civil post means a post not connected with defence and outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the States right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration."

A post, it was explained, exists apart from the holder of the post. "A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of person appointed to the post." Turning now to the rules by which the respondents were admittedly governed. It appears that they contain elaborate provisions controlling the appointment, leave, termination of services, nature of penalties, procedure for imposing penalties and other matters relating to the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents. There is a schedule annexed to the rules naming the appointing authorities in respect of each category of employees. Rule 5 states that the employees governed by these rules shall be entitled to such leave as may be determined by the Government from time to time and provides that if an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and granted to him or if an employee who is granted leave is absent from duty for any period e