JUDGMENT

Pathak, J. - It is with great regret that I find myself unable to agree with my brother Mukerjee.

2. From the material on the record it seems to me that the appellant was appointed a temporary Sub-Inspector in an officiating capacity. There is no- thing to show that he held the post thereafter in a substantive capacity. As an officiating temporary Sub-Inspector he enjoyed no right to hold the post and consequently no question arises of the contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution, I am also unable to hold that the order of reversion was passed by way of punishment. It is difficult for me to conclude that from the record before us. As regards the question whether Article 16 (1) of the Constitution has been contravened, it seems to me that the protection of that provision could have been availed of by the appellant only if he had a right to hold the post from which he had been reverted. Article 16 (1) is concerned with cases where a person has been deprived of his rights by reason of discrimination.

3. In my opinion the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. Mukherjee, J. -This special appeal is directed against the order dated May 12, 1969 passed by a learned Snigle ju