JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—Special leave to appeal granted.

2. The respondent herein, M. M. Sundararajan was recruited as a Clerk in the Indian Army in the year 1943. Some time after the regiment was demobilised, he was appointed in the Revenue Secretariat of the State Government from March, 1984 in a vacancy reserved for war service candidates. He was promoted as Section Officer in April 1969 and he continued in the post till March, 2, 1976, when he was compulsorily retired from service by the appellant-State in exercise of its power under Fundamental Rule 56 (d).

3. The respondent challenged the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras. One of the grounds of challenge was that as per procedure set out in G. O. No. 761, dated March 19, 1973, the Review Committee has to consider the cases of Gazetted Government Officers in the Secretariat headed by the Chief Secretary and not by the Departmental Secretary; and that, therefore, the order passed by the appellant-State based on the review made by a Committee which had no jurisdiction, cannot be sustained in law.

4. Following a previous decision in W. P. No. 1547 of 1977 (The Jawahar Mills case), the High Court held that since the Committee which reviewed the respondents case was not a Committee duly constituted under G. O. No. 761, dated March 19, 1973, and had not been presided over by the Chief Secretary, there was a violation of the procedure laid down by the Government in G. O. No. 761, dated March 19, 1973, and, this violation had vitiated the impugned order passed by the Government. In the result, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

5. The main contention of the learned Solicitor-General who has appeared on behalf of the appellant-State, is that the High Court has not correctly appreciated the import of the relevant Government Orders. It is submitted that under Government Order No. 1782, Public (Service-J), dated June 27, 1973, all Superintendents or Section Officers were given the status of Gazetted Officers with effect from June 13, 1973, "but, in all matters relating to appointments, transfers, postings, punishments and drawal of pay", they continued to be treated as non-Gazetted Government servants "until further orders." That was why, the case of the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order of June 27, 1973 for compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (d), was considered by the appropriate Committee constituted for non-Gazetted Government servants in the Secretariat. In the aforesaid Government Order, dated June 27, 1973. The word appointments, according to the learned Solicitor-General includes compulsory retirements, also. In support of his contention, he has referred to the decisions of this Court in Manager Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa (1979) 2 SCR 458 ; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam (1978) 1 SCR 521.

6. On the other hand, Shri Srinivasan, appearing for the respondent, submits that the word appointments in the Government Order No. 1782, dated June 27, 1973, cannot be construed to include retirements from or terminations of service. If that had been the intention, it is argued, there was no difficulty in adding the word retirements or terminations along with the words "appointments, transfers postings and punishments" in that Government Order. It is urged that a restricted interpretation should be placed on this expression.

7. Thus, the short question that falls to be considered is : was the High Court right in quashing the order of the respondents compulsory retirement, who was a Gazetted Officer at the material time, merely on the ground that it was considered by a Review Committee other than the one constituted for Gazetted Officers?

8. For the sake of perspective, it is necessary to recall that before June 27, 1973, a Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretar