ORDER

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- LEAVE GRANTED.

2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

3. THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE CORPORATION") CALLS IN QUESTION LEGALITY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE WAS INVALID. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31-5-2001 TWO SECOND APPEALS UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (IN SHORT "CPC") WERE DISPOSED OF. THE BASIC ISSUES WERE THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED IN THE CORPORATION BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. SUBSEQUENTLY, HIS SERVICES WERE TERMINATED BY ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPOT MANAGER. A SUIT WAS FILED FOR DECLARATION THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS INVALID, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

4. THE TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT BY JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27-81994 AND HELD THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS INVALID, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE CORPORATION WAS DIRECTED TO TAKE BACK THE RESPONDENT INTO SERVICE AND FINANCIAL BENEFITS WERE GRANTED FROM THE DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT. THE RESPONDENT WHO WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT FILED AN APPEAL AND PRAYED THAT FINANCIAL BENEFITS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL I.E. 11-8-1987. THE CORPORATION ALSO FILED AN APPEAL AND TOOK THE STAND THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS IN ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT WERE ILLEGAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT DISPOSED OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY JUDGMENT DATED 25-4-1997 AND HELD THAT THE DIRECTION FOR REINSTATEMENT CANNOT BE FAULTED; BUT HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFF (THE RESPONDENT HEREIN) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO GET ANY FINANCIAL BENEFITS. BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND THE CORPORATION FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF BOTH THE APPEALS DECIDING IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS PROTECTED BY ARTICLE 311(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

5. THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT CORPORATION IS THAT IN ORDER TO BRING IN APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 311 IT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED WAS A CIVIL SERVANT, HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNION OR AN ALLINDIA SERVICE OR A CIVIL SERVICE OF THE STATE AND HOLDS A CIVIL POST UNDER THE UNION OR A STATE. IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANY STAGE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 311 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

6. THE FOUNDATION OF THE DECLARATION FOR GRANT OF RELIEF SO FAR AS THE RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED IS APPARENTLY FOUNDED ON ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION. SUB-ARTICLE (1) OF ARTICLE 311 READS AS FOLLOWS:

"311. (1) NO PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF A CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNION OR AN ALL-INDIA SERVICE OR A CIVIL SERVICE OF A STATE OR HOLDS A CIVIL POST UNDER THE UNION OR A STATE SHALL BE DISMISSED OR REMOVED BY AN AUTHORITY SUBORDINATE TO THAT BY WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED."

7. A BARE READING OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION SHOWS THAT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO A MEMBER OF CIVIL SERVICE OR THE UNION OR ALL-INDIA B SERVICE OR CIVIL SERVICE OF A STATE OR A PERSON HOLDING CIVIL POST UNDER THE UNION OR A STATE.

8. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 12 THE CORPORATION MAY BE TREATED AS AN "AUTHORITY" FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING SUBJECT TO PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION.

9. IN SOM PRAKASH REKHI V. UNION OF INDIA1 THIS COURT CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. WAS A LIMB OF GOVERNMENT, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE, A VICARIOUS CREATURE OF THE STATUTE WORKING ON THE WHEELS OF THE ACQUISITION ACT. IT WAS HOWEVER HELD THAT THE CONCLUSION DOES NOT MEAN THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 309 OR OTHERWISE, THE AFORESAID GOVERNMENT COMPANY IS A STATE AND IT WAS LIMITED TO ARTICLE 12 AND PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION.

10. JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE TWO CONSTITUTION BENCH DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE 311