Termination of temporary service under Rule 5(a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, without any right to hold the post, is not a punishment or blame and does not violate Article 311(2) or Article 14 of the Constitution.

K.Ahmad, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is the respondent here was until the 26th March, 1958, in the service of the Indian School of Mines and Applied Geology as a Laboratory Assistant, attached to the Department of Pnysics and Mathematics in the scale of Rs. 40-1-50-2-60 along with the usual dearness allowance. On 26-3-58, however, he suddenly received a letter from the Director of the. School terminating his service with effect from 28th April, 1958. Subsequently, on enquiry, he learnt from a Government letter dated 28th/29th March, 1958 that the termination of his service was effected under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, as both the post and appointment was temporary and was not the result of any complaint or allegation made against him.

The plaintiff thereupon got a notice under Sec.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure served on the Director or the School on 16-4-58 and thereafter the present action was brought on 25-4-1958 for a declaration that the aforesaid letter dated 26-3-58 terminating his service with effect from 28th April, 1958, was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and was also arbitrary and discriminatory and as such no valid termination could be effected thereunder. In the plaint two persons were impleaded as defendants (1) The Union of India and (2) the Director of Indian School of Mines.

2. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit, the findings as given by the lower appellate Court in support of its judgment are as follows:

"1. There can be no doubt about the plaintiffs ser vice being of a temporary nature within the meaning of Rule 5(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1949" and "that the contention of the plaintiff that he was given a permanent post cannot be accepted."

2. That the plaintiff "cannot be deemed to have been in quasi-permanent service".

3. It is not mentioned in the appointment letter "that his appointment was for any particular period and so the only inference which can be drawn from this letter is that his appointment for the post was for the entire period over which the post was extended from time to time".

4. "That the provisions of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution are attracted under the circumstances of the present case, and the services of the plaintiff cannot be dispensed with, tiil the sanction for the post exists".

5. "That the Director of School of Mines and Applied Geology, waived the right under Section 80 C.P.C. and the validity of the notice, sent by the plaintiff under this section cannot be challenged".

3. It appears that the appointment of the plaintiff to the present post was made twice, in the first instance he was appointed under a letter dated 17th July, 1955. That was at a time when the aforesaid Indian School of Mines and Applied Geology was under the management of the Principal. That appointment, however, was admittedly temporary and it stood terminated on 8-6-57. On the second occasion the appointment given to the plaintitf was under a letter dated 26th June, 1957, and this time it was made by the Director of the School who had by then assumed charge of the management of the School, this time the advertisement was for five such posts and they were all initially for a period up to 31-5-57 but with a note therein that they were likely to continue. And it is not denied that subsequently these posts including the one held by the plaintiff were in fact extended from time to time till February 1960, and that even up to the date of the judgment under appeal they were in existence.

On these facts, the main contentions raised in the two Courts below on behalf of the plaintiff in regard to the tenure of his service were two--(i) that the service held by the plaintiff, even if not permanent, was at least quasi-permanent as defined in Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules and not merely temporary, and (2) that in any case the plaintiff was entitled to hold the post at least till it existed.

4. A quasi-permanent