JUDGMENT

A.N. Varma, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that an order passed by the defendant-respondent purporting to terminate the petitioners services as a Company Commandant in the Home Guard is null and void, and that the plaintiff legally continues in service.

2. The question to be determined in this case is whether the plaintiff was, as a Company Commandant in the Home Guard, holding a Civil Post in the context of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Both the courts below have answered this question against the plaintiff and have dismissed his suit. Hence, this second appeal.

3. Facts relevant for the determination of the above controversy are not in dispute. At the material time, the plaintiff was serving as a Company Commandant in the Home Guards, a force created as an auxiliary to the U.P. Police. By the impugned order, the plaintiff's services were terminated. The plaint case is that the plaintiff was selected and employed as a Company Commandant in the Home Guards. He applied and was granted some leave to do the course for the degree of Bachelor of Education. The plaintiff alleges that his immediate superior, namely, defendant No. 2 the Staff Officer, Home Guards assured him that he could do so, and that the leave would be sanctioned to him for that purpose. The allegation is that instead of sanctioning leave, the defendant No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner. The plaintiff asserts in the plaint he was holding a civil post, that the order of termination amounted to removal from service, and that inasmuch as the plaintiff was given no opportunity to show cause against his removal, the constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution of India was violated by the defendant and, consequently, the order of termination was liable to declared void.

4. The defendants contested the suit and asserted that the plaintiff was not holding a civil post under the State, that he was a Commandant in the Home Guard drawing only an honorarium and that his services could be terminated at any moment. The defence was that Article 311 of the (Constitution was not applicable to the plaintiff.

5. The trial court framed various issues. One of them was whether the order date 20-12-65 terminating the petitioner's services was illegal and void for the reasons set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaint. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff had asserted that he was given no opportunity or notice to show cause against the proposed removal prior to to the passing of the impugned order.

6. The trial court held that provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution were not attracted to the present case as, in its opinion, the plaintiff was holding only an honorary post as a Home Guard under the U. F. Home Guards Act, 1963 and not any civil post under the State. This view has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Hence, this second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged, relying on the provisions of U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the decisions both of the Supreme Court of India end of other High Courts that the plaintiff was clearly holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and the view of the courts below to the contrary is manifestly erroneous.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have not the least doubt that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is right, and that the view taken by the courts below is plainly unsustainable in law.

9. The expression 'civil post' as occurring in Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India has not been defined. However, the term 'civil post' has been subject of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India as well as other High Courts on several occasions. What meaning has to be assigned to these words, namely, 'civil post' has therefore, to be culled out from these