Back
1964 Supreme(AP) 213
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR
K.Jagannadham - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 10-26-64
A person who has been duly appointed to a post and has completed the period of probation can be discharged or removed from service only in accordance with the statutory service rules governing him.
Headnote:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - APPOINTMENT - CANCELLATION - PETITIONER PASSED S.S.L.C. EXAMINATION WITH SECRETARIAL COURSE AS OPTIONAL SUBJECT - SECRETARIAL COURSE CONSISTED OF DRAFTING, PRECIS-WRITING AND TYPEWRITING - PETITIONER PERMITTED TO SIT FOR COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION HELD BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR SELECTION OF CLERKS - PETITIONER PASSED EXAMINATION AND APPOINTED AS TYPIST ON PROBATION - AFTER COMPLETION OF PROBATION, PETITIONER DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE ON GROUND THAT HE DID NOT POSSESS REQUISITE QUALIFICATION IN TYPEWRITING - HELD, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO PROTECTION OF SERVICE RULES - RESPONDENTS ESTOPPED FROM TAKING ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED AND IMPUGNED ORDER QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner passed S.S.L.C. examination with secretarial course as optional subject, which consisted of drafting, precis-writing and typewriting. Petitioner was permitted to sit for competitive examination held by Public Service Commission for selection of clerks. Petitioner passed examination and appointed as typist on probation. After completion of probation, petitioner discharged from service on ground that he did not possess requisite qualification in typewriting.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner was not informed of alleged provisional nature of permission to sit for competitive examination. Petitioner had acquitted himself properly in furnishing true copy of S.S.L.C. register. Petitioner was not guilty of any mala fides. Respondents were to be blamed for mistake, if any, and for negligence and delay which led to that mistake. Petitioner had placed all available material truthfully before Public Service Commission, and by their conduct, the Commission caused the petitioner to act on the faith of the existence of a state of affairs which, to his great detriment he was told, more than two years later, did not exist. Petitioner is entitled to protection of service rules under which he was appointed and which govern him. Respondents having brought about a situation on the faith of which the petitioner embarked upon a service career, cannot, at so late a stage and so much to the detriment to the petitioner, be heard in say that the situation of their making should be regarded as not have existed at all. Principle of estoppel operates against the respondents in the circumstances of this case.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection of service rules?
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner was duly appointed as a probationer and has also completed the period of his probation. He can be discharged or removed from service only in accordance with the statutory service rules governing him. There is no service rule which authorises the respondents to get rid of the petitioner from service in the manner sought to be done by the impugned order. No fraud, misrepresentation or anything mala fide has even indirectly been imputed to the petitioner. Any negligence, oversight or mistake of the respondents cannot be blamed (in the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to the protection of the service rules under which he was appointed and which govern him. The respondents having brought about a situation on the faith of which the petitioner embarked upon a service career, cannot, at so late a stage and so much to the detriment to the petitioner, be heard in say that the situation of their making should be regarded as not have existed at all. The principle of estoppel operates against the respondents in the circumstances of this case.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed and impugned order quashed.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution asking for an appropriate Writ, order or direction to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Kuniool in his Ref. A. 6-24380/63 dated 4-2-1964. The brief facts lending up to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner passed his S. S. L. C. Examination in the year 1955 with "secretarial course" us his optional subject. "secretarial course" consists of drafting, Precis-writing and Typewriting. After having passed the S. S. L. C. examination, the petitioner applied to the Public Service Commission for being admitted to the competitive examination held by it for selection of clerks, etc. The petitioner was duly permitted to sit for the examination which was held by the Public Service Commission in March 1959. He was successful in that examination, and his name was in due course included by the Service Commission in the approved list of candidates for appointment in the Kurnool District. On 12-1-1962, the petitioner received a communication from the Collector of Kuniool informing him that he and 10 others were approved as candidates for appointment, and that the petitioner was appointed as a typist on probation in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. The petitioner joined duty on 25-1-1962 at Nandyal. The probation was for a period of two years. He completed that period and was continuing as typist. But on 4-2-1964, the District Collector, kuniool at the instance of the Service Commission, passed an order purporting to cancel the petitioners selection as an approved candidate on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification in typewriting for being permitted to sit for the competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission in March 1959. On this ground the petitioner was discharged from service. It is this order that is now impugned by the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE first respondent, who is the District Collector, Kurnool, has not filed any counter but the second respondent who is the Secretary, Public Service Commission, Andhra Pradesh, has filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned order. He says that the petitioner was only provisionally permitted to sit for the competitive examination and that his selection as an approved candidate for appointment as a typist was also provisional. He clarifies this by stating that the petitioners inclusion in the approved list was subject to his producing the original documents of which he had already furnished true copies. After the originals were produced by the petitioner, enquiries were made by the Secretary, Public Service Commission and it was ascertained from the Commissioner of Board of Secondary Education that the petitioner had obtained only 44 per cent in Typewriting in the S. S. L. C. Examination. Only a person who had secured 45 per cent of the marks in typewriting was eligible to sit for the competitive examination held by the Service Commission in March 1959. As the petitioner was eventually found not to have obtained this requisite number of marks, he was not entitled to be retained in service and the Collector was therefore justified in discharging him from service by the impugned order.
( 3 ) IT is well to state at this stage that it in not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or lack of bona fides. He did not at any lime state or give the impression to the Collector or the Public Service Commission that he had obtained 45 per cent in the typewriting examination. Indeed, it appears that at the relevant time he himself was not aware of the number of marks he had obtained in that subject. His S. S. L. C. register did not separately slate the marks obtained in Typewriting. It treated "secretarial course" as a single subject and showed that the petitioner had obtained 40 per cent in it. It was a true copy of this register that the petitioner furnished to t
