A civil servant cannot be dismissed by an authority subordinate to the one that had appointed him, and the Court has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the rights of civil servants.

1. The Applicant was originally appointed a welfare Officer of the Refugee Relief Camp. Chakrabhata, tahsil and district Bilaspur, on a salary of Rs. 110 per month with effect from 12-8-1948. subsequently, the Applicant was appointed an Assistant Refugee Officer in the Tahsildar's grade on a salary of Rs. 200-375 with effect from the 19th January 1949 by an order of the Governor, Central Provinces and Berar, dated 4-3-1949.

2. It is not disputed that the appointment was temporary and liable to be terminated at any time. According to the Applicant, there arose some differences between the Applicant & the senior Refugee Officer which it is not necessary to refer in detail. The Applicant was informed by the Senior Refugee Officer (non-Applicant No. 3), who is also the Camp Commandant, that the Applicant's services were terminated under order No. Q/-D.R.O. dated 31-10-1949 passed by the Camp Commandant himself. The Applicant questions the legality of this order on the ground that the Camp Commandant had no jurisdiction to terminate the Applicant's appointment.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the non-Applicants, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur, and the Senior Refugee Officer. In the affidavit filed by non-Applicant No. 2 in paragraph 3 it was admitted that the services were terminated by him 'vide' his order No. Q/DRO, dated 31st October 1949. It was however denied that the termination of services of the Applicant was illegal. It was asserted that non-Applicant No. 2 had been duly authorized in that behalf by the State Government: 'vide' their memorandum No. 13603-12240/RRR, dated the 20th October 1949.

The Camp Commandant was asked by non-Applicant No. 2 to communicate his said order to all the surplus staff whose services were terminated by the aforesaid order including the Applicant. The order passed by non-Applicant No. 2 was in face the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government (non-Applicant No. 1), the authority appointing the Applicant. It was pleaded that the Senior Refugee Officer instead of forwarding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner communicated only the substance of it without mentioning the fact that it was the order of the latter.

4. The Question is whether the order terminating the services of the non-Applicant is valid. Under Section 240(2), Government of India Act, no person holding a civil post could be dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he had been appointed. We will consider the question on the footing that the impugned order was in fact passed by the Deputy Commissioner himself and not the Refugee Officer.

5. In view of the fact that the appointment of the Applicant to the post of Assistant Refugee Officer was by an order of the Governor, he could not be removed from service by the Deputy Commissioner (non-Applicant 2). The provision has been construed by their Lordships of the Privy Council' in- Suraj Narain Anand v. North West Frontier Province, 1949 AIR(PC) 112 (A), to be mandatory and not permissive. It is also clear from the decision in- Rangachari v. Secy of State, 1937 AIR(PC) 27 (B), which arose under the corresponding provision, Section 96B(1) of the Government of India Act, 1919, that the authority making the appointment cannot delegate the power of dismissal so as to destroy the protection afforded by the provision. The dismissal of a civil servant by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed would be unlawful and inoperative. So the Deputy Commissioner could not validly terminate the services of the Applicant even if so autho-rized by the State Government.

6. The point still remains for consideration whether the Court should grant the relief which the Applicant seeks in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that no infringement of a fundamental right is involved. But the power of the Court extends to issuing to the Government directions, orders or w