SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(P&H) 47

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harnam Singh and S.M.Soni JJ.
Mangal Sain
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil MISCELLANEOUS Petition No. 747 of 1950,
Decided On : MAY 21, 1951

Municipal employees do not hold civil posts under the State within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

EXECUTIVE OFFICER - MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE - REMOVAL FROM OFFICE - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - APPLICABILITY - CIVIL POST UNDER THE STATE - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

Shri Mangal Sain was appointed as Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, under Sub-section (9) of Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931. On 4th December 1950, the Punjab Government removed him from office under Sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Act. Shri Mangal Sain filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the removal order contravened Article 311 of the Constitution as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against his removal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Shri Mangal Sain did not hold a civil post under the State within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The court found that Municipal employees do not hold civil posts under the State and that Shri Mangal Sain, who was appointed and removed by the State Government, did not hold a civil post under the State.

Issues: 1. Whether Shri Mangal Sain held a civil post under the State within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the removal order contravened Article 311 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the expression "civil post under the State" in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It held that the expression means "a post or office on the civil side of the administration" as distinguished from "post connected with defence". 2. The court examined the provisions of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, and found that the Executive Officer is appointed by the Municipal Committee and is remunerated by the Municipal fund. The court held that the mere fact that the Executive Officer is appointed and removed by the State Government does not make him a civil post under the State.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application of Shri Mangal Sain for mandamus and other reliefs.

Judgment

Harnam Singh, J.

1. In order to appreciate the points which we are called upon to determine in Civil Miscellaneous No. 747 of 1950 the facts, so far as material, may be set out in some detail.

2. Under the provisions of Sub-section (9) of Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Punjab Government appointed Shri Mangal Sain as Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Ambala City, with effect from the date that Shri Mangal Sain assumed charge of that office. Sub-section (9) of Section 3 of the Act reads:

"3 (9) Whenever an Executive Officer dies, resigns or is removed the Committee shall, within three months of his death, resignation or removal, appoint another person to be Executive Officer in the manner provided in Sub-sections (1) to (3), and if the Committee fails to appoint such a person within such period the State Government may appoint such a person in the manner provided in Sub-section (4): "

3. Shri Mangal Sain assumed charge of office on the 21st of January, 1949 (forenoon).

4. Under Sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Act the State Government ordered on the 4th of December, 1950, the removal of Shri Mangal Sain from the office of Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Ambala City. Sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Act reads:

"3 (7) The Executive Officer may at any time be suspended or removed from office by the State Government, and shall be so suspended or removed if at a meeting of the Committee convened to consider the question of his suspension or removal not less than five-eighths of the total number of members constituting the Committee for the time being vote in favour of his suspension or removal, and it the Executive Officer is suspended the Committee shall appoint some person with the approval of the State Government to officiate as Executive Officer."

5. On the 19th of December, 1950, Shri Mangal Sain applied for writs of certiorari, prohibition and certain other reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the order passed by the Punjab Government on the 4th of December, 1950, removing him from the office of Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Ambala City, contravenes the mandatory provisions of Article 311 of the Con- stitution of India inasmuch as he has not been given reasonable opportunity to show cause against his removal from that office.

6. Upon the application of Shri Mangal , Sain the learned Chief Justice ordered on the 20th of December, 1950: Rule. Fix next week. Interim order of Committee not to make appointment in meanwhile."

7. On the 23rd of April, 1951, Shri Mangal Sain applied for permission to amend the application by substituting the word mandamus for the word certiorari in the heading and paragraph No. 15 of the application and in arguing the case counsel for the parties have treated the application as if it were an application for mandamus and other reliefs.

8. In these proceedings it is not disputed that a writ of mandamus lies to compel the restoration of a person to an office of which he has been wrongfully dispossessed provided such office is of a public nature. Indeed, the rule of law is firmly established that if public officials fail to perform any public duty of which they have been charged, a writ of mandamus will lie to compel them to carry out that duty. On this point paras. Nos. 1271 and 1281, Halsburys Laws of England, Volume 9 (second edition), may be seen.

9. As stated above, Shri Mangal Sain applicant maintains that the order passed by the State Government on the 4th of December* 1950, removing him from the office of Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Ambala City, contravenes the mandatory provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as he has not been given reasonable opportunity to show cause against his removal from that office. Relevant provisions of Article 311 read:

"311 (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union o











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top