Temporary employees whose services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason are not Government servants or holding civil posts under the State within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were by consent directed to be heard together because they raise the same points of controversy. There is a minor difference between them but that is not very material and I shall deal with that difference later on.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are drivers employed under the Durgapur Steel Project under the Hindusthan Steel Limited. The first petitioner in Rule No. 4052 of I960 was appointed on the 1st April, 1957 pursuant to an offer made on the 26th March. His services were terminated on the 20th June, 1959. He did not obtain the Rule until as late as 19th September, 1960. The petitioner in the other Rule, Bimal Chandra Majumdar was appointed on the 21st September, 1957 on an offer made on the llth September 1957. His services were terminated on the 14th April, 1959. He did not obtain this Rule until 17th January, 1s61. Delay has been urged as a ground in both the cases on which it has been contended that the applications must be dismissed and the Rules must be discharged.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, Verghese, in Rule No, 40. 52 of 1961 was only a temporary driver. The offer which the General Manager, Ministry of Iron and Steel, Durgapur Steel Project, Government of India made to him makes it clear that the post that was being offered to him was the post of a "temporary driver". The letter of appointment in his case leaves no room for doubt or argument on this point. In fact the letter of appointment reads as follows:"mr. M. Verghese is appointed as a Driver with effect from 1-4-57 FN on a pay of Rs. 60/- per month in the scale of Rs. 60-5/2-75/- plus usual allowances admissible under the existing Government of India Rules. The appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. "

( 4 ) THIS shows that the petitioner Verghese was a temporary employee and that a term or condition of his temporary appointment was that his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. In fact what happened was that on the 20th May 1959 the General Manager, Durgapur Steel Project terminated his services in the following terms:"the services of Shri M. Verghese, Driver attached to the Mechanical Division, are terminated with effect from the afternoon of the 21st May 1959. "

( 5 ) IT is this order of termination that the petitioner Vergbese challenges as illegal and unconstitutional. His submission is that he is a Government servant and therefore he has all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and specially by Article 311 of the Constitution. He complains that there was no charge-sheet against him and that he never had any opportunity to show any cause against such termination and therefore he complains that the termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Jt has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Verghese that he is governed by the Standing Orders for Industrial Employees of the Hindusthan Steel Limited which were issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The reason why this contention was put forward on behalf of the petitioner was that the term 'employee' in these Rules and Orders included a probationer and that therefore the petitioner could only be proceeded against under Rule 40 of those Rules which describe the steps for disciplinary proceedings under those Rules. All these points are common with the petitioner in the other Rule where the petitioner is Bimal Chandra Majumdar.

( 6 ) THE technical difficulties in this petition are in my view insuperable. The petitioner has made the Union of India, General Manager, Durgapur Steel Project (Hindusthan Steel Limited) and Secretary, Hindusthan Steel Limited as the three respondents to this application. Now the first respondent, Union of India, is supposed to be represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Iron and Steel. New Delhi. This first respondent. Union of India, is outside