S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J.

1. Whether the very cancellation of an appointment on the ground of its being void ab-initio would be removal within the meaning of article 311 of the Constitution, has come to be the primal question in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, entirely on a temporary basis, by the District Superintendent of Education, Purnea, vide his order dated the 28th April, 1976 (Annexure 2 ). It is claimed on his behalf that thereafter, he continued to serve in the said post till the 23rd of March, 1983, when a notice was issued to the appellant and others, asking them to produce caste certificates, and, in pursuance thereto, the appellant produced his caste certificate, stating that he belonged to the backward Suri caste. Later, on the 21st of May, 1983 (Annexure 3), Respondent No.2 issued another letter, directing the appellant and some others, to submit their explanation against the allegation that they had obtained employment on the basis of wrong caste certificate submitted by them, claiming to be Scheduled Caste. The appellant averred that, in reply to the above said communication, he filed a show cause, taking the ground that, in fact, he had never produced any certificate showing that he belonged to the scheduled caste. However, Respondent No.2, on the 14th September, 1983, issued a fresh communication (Annexure 4), informing the appellant that he had not submitted his show cause, despite earlier requests, and directing him to file his show cause within three days. In reply thereto, the appellant then submitted his show cause on the 24th September, 1983 (Annexure 5), wherein he chose to take the ground that, in fact, his appointment was not made again a post reserved for the scheduled caste. However, by an order dated the 12th November, 1983 (Annexure 1), Respondent No.2 cancelled the appointment of the appellant on the ground that he had obtained employment against a past reserved for the scheduled caste by submitting a false certiticate of his caste and both his show-cause applications, having been duly considered, had been found to be unsatisfactory.

3. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant preferred Civil Writ Jurisdiction case No.5916 of 1983, challenging the cancellation of his appointment.

4. Before the learned Single Judge it was pointedly urged that the impugned cancellation of the appointment of the appellant amounts to his removal from the service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, and, was, therefore, void, because no departmental enquiry therefor had been made. It was further urged that the appellant bad been appointed under the direction of the District establishment Committee and only the said Committee could remove the appellant from the service, and not the District Superintendant of Education, who had done so, vide Annexure 1.

5. Both these contentions did not find favour with the learned Single judge, who held that Article 311 of the Constitution was not attracted to the situation, and the requirements of natural justice had been fully complied with, and, in fact, the appellant had never even claimed to adduce any evidence in support of his stand. It was further held that Respondent No.2 was fully competent to declare the appellants appointment illegal, because the case was not one of removal under Article 311 of the Constitution.

6. As before the learned Single Judge so before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant first forcefully projected his stand that even the cancellation of the appointment of the appellant on the ground of having wrongly obtained the same against a reserved scheduled caste vacancy, was tantamount to removal from the service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, and consequently, the procedural requirement of a departmental enquiry must be rigidly adhered to.

7. Primal reliance was attempted to be placed on Khem Chand V/s. Union of India and others, 1