1957 Supreme(MP) 200

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. R. DAS, C. J. I. , T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
NOHIRIA RAM - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil 117 Of 1957
Decided On : 11/08/1957

The Public Service Commission has the authority to impose conditions on the appointment of candidates to subordinate services, including conditions that restrict their eligibility for promotion or transfer to other positions.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'SERVICE LAW - PERMANENT APPOINTMENT - ADDITIONAL POST - REGULAR CADRE - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - CONDITION OF APPOINTMENT - FOREIGN SERVICE - TRANSFER - SUBORDINATE SERVICE - RECRUITMENT - POWERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - REFUSAL TO WORK - CONSEQUENCES', 'SUBJECT': 'Service Law - Permanent Appointment - Additional Post - Regular Cadre - Public Service Commission - Condition of Appointment - Foreign Service - Transfer - Subordinate Service - Recruitment - Powers of Public Service Commission - Refusal to Work - Consequences', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Fundamental Rule 9 (4)', 'Fundamental Rule 127', 'Fundamental Rule 111', 'Fundamental Rule 113']}

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Pt. Nohiria Ram, was appointed as a clerk in the office of the Director General, Indian Medical Service, New Delhi, in 1928. The appointment was initially for one year, but was later made permanent in 1930. The appellant was transferred to foreign service under the Indian Research Fund Association in 1931 and remained there till 1944. In 1944, he reverted to the office of the Director General, Indian Medical Service, but was informed that his post was outside the regular cadre and that he would not be entitled to any promotions or increments. The appellant challenged this decision in court and obtained a decree from the learned Subordinate Judge. However, the Union of India appealed against the decree and the Punjab High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the appellant's suit. The appellant then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's post was outside the regular cadre of the office of the Director General, Indian Medical Service, and that he was not entitled to any promotions or increments. The Court also held that the Public Service Commission had the authority to impose a condition on the appellant's appointment that he would not have any claim to appointment as a Routine Division Clerk in the Secretariat or its attached Offices.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's post was part of the regular cadre of the office of the Director General, Indian Medical Service? 2. Whether the Public Service Commission had the authority to impose a condition on the appellant's appointment that he would not have any claim to appointment as a Routine Division Clerk in the Secretariat or its attached Offices?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant's post was outside the regular cadre of the office of the Director General, Indian Medical Service, based on the following factors: a. The Government of India's letter dated 26/02/1930, which sanctioned the creation of an additional post for the work of the Indian Research Fund Association, stated that the post would be outside the regular cadre of the Director General's office. b. The Director General, Indian Medical Service, in his letter dated 2/04/1935, stated that the post was considered outside the regular cadre of his office. c. The Home Department's letter dated 7/08/1939, stated that the post would not be absorbed in the regular cadre on the occurrence of a vacancy. 2. The Court held that the Public Service Commission had the authority to impose a condition on the appellant's appointment that he would not have any claim to appointment as a Routine Division Clerk in the Secretariat or its attached Offices, based on the following factors: a. The office memorandum of the Government of India in the Home Department dated 8/12/1928, paragraph VIII, empowered the Public Service Commission to exempt from the examination or to admit to a particular Division persons who by reason of their previous record can in their opinion properly be exempted or admitted as the case may be. b. The appellant's case was referred to the Public Service Commission under the aforesaid paragraph.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals filed by the appellant.