The termination of a temporary government servant's service, executed by a subordinate authority, does not violate the law if the order originated from the appointing authority.

1. This is a Writ Petition filed by Shri Pran Gopal Saha, an Ex - Amin in the Tribal Welfare Department, Tripura, under Art.226 read with Art.311 (2) of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ for quashing the notice, dated 17-2-1961, of Shri L. B. Thanga, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura, terminating his services under R.5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with effect from the date of expiry of one calendar month from the date of service of the order on him and the subsequent order dated 29-3-1961 of actual termination of his service in pursuance of the notice.

2. The petitioner was appointed temporarily by an order, dated 17-2-1956, of Shri M. Ramunny, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura, for a short period upto 29-2-1956 on the scale of Rs. 55-3-118-4-130/- together with the usual allowances as admissible in Tripura on the condition that his service was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reasons. His order of appointment was also made subject to his being found fit on medical examination and verification of his character and antecedents. Vide Ext. A(1). He continued to be in service. After a lapse of 5 years he was served with a notice, dated 17-2-1961, signed by Shri L. B. Thanga, the then Additional District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura, under R.5 of the Rules, that his service would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of one calendar month from the date of service of the notice on him. Vide Ext. A (4). In pursuance of the said notice the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dharmanagar, under whom the petitioner was then working as Amin, Tribal Welfare Section, Dharmanagar, released him from duty with effect from the afternoon of 29-3-1961. Vide Ext. A(5). The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent Chief Commissioner against the order of termination of his service, without any success, Vide Exts. A(6), A(8) and A(9). The petitioner thereupon issued a registered notice of demand to the Chief Secretary, Tripura Administration and also the first respondent District Magistrate and Collector threatening to file a Writ Petition, if he was not reinstated. Vide Ext. A(7). But, as he was not reinstated, he filed the present Writ Petition.

3. The Central Government framed the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1949 (under S.241 (7) of the Govt. of India Act of 1935). The petitioner, who was appointed temporarily and whose services were liable to be terminated without any notice or any reasons, did not acquire the status of a quasi permanent Government servant within the meaning of R. 3 of the aforesaid Rules, though he was in continuous Government service for more than 3 years. A Government servant would be deemed to be in quasi - permanent service under the said rule, provided, firstly, he is in continuous Government service for more than 3 years and secondly, if the appointing authority, being satisfied as to his suitability in respect of age, qualification, work and character for employment in a quasi - permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to that effect in accordance with such instructions as the President may issue from time to time. But, in the case of the petitioner no such declaration was issued. So he remained to be purely a temporary Government servant.

4. In the Writ Petition three grounds were taken by the petitioner impugning the orders of termination of his service. The first ground is that he was appointed by Shri M. Ramunny, the then District Magistrate and Collector, but that his service was terminated by the Additional District Magistrate a