( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal arose under the following circumstances: the appellant O. Ramachandra Reddi was appointed as a Tool Maker Grade a in the Defence Research and Development Laboratories (DRDL), Hyderabad on 2nd November, 1973 by the Director 1st respondent. His appointment to the post was temporary. On 2-1-1978, the Deputy Director, D. R. D. L. issued an order terminating the services of the appellant which was challenged by way of writ Petition No. 952 of 1978. In the writ petition the appellant raised two contentions, namely, (1) that the appellant has acquired the status of a quasi permanent servant and, therefore, the termination of his services under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is without jurisdiction and (2) that the termination is really by way of punishment notwithstanding the innocuous language employed in the impugned order. The termination of services of the appellant, therefore, without complying with the requirements of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the Central Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is illegal and void.

( 2 ) THE Writ Petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who dismissed the same, holding that there is no evidence that the appellant has acquired the quasi permanent status and that Article 311 is not applicable in his case as he is a civilian holding the post in defence service, aggrieved by which, the appellant has filed a Writ Appeal.

( 3 ) THE Writ Appeal was allowed on the ground that the delegation made by the appointing authority to the 2nd respondent, namely, Group Captain, d. R. D. L. is beyond the powers of the appointing authority under proviso to rule 9 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules. However, on the application made by the respondents herein, the learned Judges granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court allowed the Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1981 filed by the respondents holding that the delegation of power made in favour of the 2nd respondent by the appointing authority is valid and remanded the matter for consideration of the other issues raised by the appellant. The Supreme Court while disposing of the appeal on 10-4-1990, along with a batch of cases, wherein a similar question arose for consideration, held as follows: (Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of defence and others vs. S. Daniel)"the above discussion narrows down the controversy before us to a very short issue: Can it be said, where the appointing authority under Rule 9 (1) has delegated his powers of appointment under the proviso, that both the authorities should be treated as the "authority empowered to appoint" persons to the post, grade or service or does this expression get restricted only to the latter, i. e. , the delegatee authority? If both fall under the above description within the meaning of sub-clause (i), respondent s plea that the definition in Rule 2 (a) will mark out only the scientific Advisor / General Manager would be correct. On the other hand, if the second of the above interpretations is correct, the appellant s stand will have to be upheld. We do not think it is necessary to go into this question. In view of the decision in Godawari (supra), we shall accept the general proposition that the delegation of the power of appointment under the proviso to rule 9 (1) does not necessarily deprive the disciplinary authority specified in the main part of the rule from exercising the delegated power of appointment in any case or class of cases. "

( 4 ) HENCE the Writ Appeal is posted before us after the remand.

( 5 ) SRI Y. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions: (1) The appellant was appointed as Tool Maker Grade A by the order of the director, D. R. D. L. while the services of the appellant were terminated by Group captain Nahar, Deputy Director, who was subordinate to the Director, D. R.