The judgment establishes the legal principle that in determining whether an individual is holding a civil post under the Union of India, the interpretation of relevant rules and the distinction between different types of posts are crucial factors.

1. All these cases involve the same question and a decision in the first case will cover all of them.

2. The respondent in the first case was an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (a Postman); and his services were terminated with effect from 1st January 1966 without complying with Art.311 of the Constitution. The relevant orders were Exx. P3 and P4; and in the writ petition these orders were challenged. And a learned judge allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned orders. The objection raised by the appellants, the Inspector of Post Offices and the Union of India, was that the respondent was not "holding a civil post" under the Union of India as contemplated by Art.310 of the Constitution and was therefore not entitled to rely on Art.311. And it was this contention that was overruled by the Single judge, who held that the respondent was holding a civil post under the Union of India. The decision of the Single Judge is reported as Subasa Chandra Das v The Inspector of Post Offices(ILR. (1967) 2 Ker. 649).

3. The conditions of service of Extra Departmental Delivery Agents and Post Masters working in Extra Departmental Post Offices are contained in the Post and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules of 1964. And the learned judge has summarised the relevant provisions of those Rules in Para.2 of his judgment. It is admitted that that summary is substantially correct.

4. The Single Judge considered two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., State of U. P. v. Anudh Narain Singh (AIR. 1965 SC. 360), in which the criteria for finding out whether there was a master and servant relationship between the employer and the employee were considered, and The State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (AIR. 1967 SC. 884), where the question as to what constituted "holding a civil post" was considered. Before the learned judge the decision of the Orissa High Court in Venkata Swami v. Superintendent of Post Offices (AIR. 1957 Orissa 112) was also cited in support f of the stand taken by the Union of India. In the Orissa decision, it was held that an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master was not a person holding a civil post.

5. There is not much dispute that there was the relationship of master and servant between the Union of India and the respondent: therefore, we need not consider Anudh Narain Singh's case any further. The only question we need consider is whether. the respondent, in addition to his being a servant of the Union of India, was also holding a civil post under the Union. This question was considered by the Supreme Court in Kanak Chandra Dutta's case; and the decision of the Orissa High Court was also noted by Their Lordships. Their Lordships stated that the observation of the Orissa High Court that a part-time employee could not be a holder of a civil post outside the regularly constituted service was too wide and could not be supported. The Single Judge noted this observation of the Supreme Court and then came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Rules summarised by him is Para.2 of bis judgment indicated that the respondent was holding a civil post under the Union.

6. The Supreme Court observed in Kanak Chandra Dutta's case. "A post under the State is an office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post. Art.310 (2) contemplates that a post may be abolished and a person holding a post may be required to vacate the post, and it emphasises the idea of a post existing apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not a bolder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State."

Their Lordships thus considered the question as to what was meant by "a post". Their Lordships also considered the distinction between a "civil post" and othe