Civil Appeal No 1743 of 1980
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 24 4 1979 of the Madras High Court in WP No 88677
K Parasarans Solicitor General and AV Rangam for the Appellant
V Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and ATM Sampath for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J
Special leave to appeal granted
The respondent herein M N Sundarajan was recruited as a Clerk in the Indian Army in the year 1943
Sometime after the regiment was demobilised he was appointed in the Revenue Secretariat of the State Government from March 1948 in a vacancy reserved for war service candidates
He was promoted as Section Officer in April 1969 and he continued in the post till March 2 1976 when he was compulsorily retired from service by the appellant State in exercise of its power under Fundamental Rule 56d
473 The respondent challenged the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madras
One of the grounds of challenge was that as per procedure set out in GO No 761
dated March 19 1973 the Review Committee has to consider the cases of Gazetted Government Officers in the Secretariat headed by the Chief Secretary and not by the Departmental Secretary and that therefore the order passed by the appellant State based on the review made by a Committee which had no jurisdiction cannot be sustained in law
Following a previous decision in WP 1547 of 1977 The Jawahar Mills  case the High Court held that since the Committee which reviewed the respondent s case was not a Committee duly constituted under GO No 761 dated March 19 1973 and had not been presided over by the Chief Secretary there was a violation of the procedure laid down by the Government in GO No 761 dated March 19 1973 and this violation had vitiated the impugned order passed by the Government
In the result the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed
Hence this appeal by special leave
The main contention of the learned Solicitor General who has appeared on behalf of the appellant State is that the High Court has not correctly appreciated the import of the relevant Government orders
It is submitted that under Government order No 1782
Public Services J dated June 27 1973 all Superintendents or Section officers were given the status of Gazetted officers with effect from June 13 1973 but in all matters relating to appointments transfers postings punishments and drawl of pay they continued to be treated as non Gazetted Government servants until further orders
 That was why the case of the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government order of June 27 1973 for compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56d was considered by the appropriate Committee constituted for non Gazetted Government servants in the Secretariat
In the aforesaid Government order dated June 27 1973 the word appointments  according to the learned Solicitor General includes compulsory retirements  also
In support of his contention he has referred to the decisions of this Court in Manager Govt
Branch Press  Anr
vs D B Belliappa and State of Uttar Pradesh vs Chandra Mohan Nigam  Ors
On the other hand
Shri Srinivasan appearing for the respondent submits that the word appointments  in the GO No 1782 dated June 474 27 1973 cannot be construed to include retirements  from or terminations  of service
If that had been the intention it is argued there was no difficulty in adding the word retirements  or terminations  along with the words appointments transfers postings and punishments in that Government Order
It is urged that a restricted interpretation should be placed on this expression Thus the short question that falls to be considered is Was the High Court right in quashing the order of the respondent s compulsory retirement who was a Gazetted Officer at the material time merely on the ground that it was considered by a Review Committee other than the one constituted for Gazetted Officers  For the sake of perspective it is necessary to recall that before June 27 1973 a Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat used to be a non Gazetted officer
In 1972 and earlier several representations were made by the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Associations and others that the Superintendents of the Secretariat should be accorded Gazetted status
Ultimately the Government by order GO Ms No 1616 Public Services J dated June 13 1973 made the post of a Superintendent of the Secretariat a Gazetted post with effect from the date of that order
Such Superintendents were re designated as Section Officers
In the aforesaid GO it was stated that the amendment to the said Rule should be issued shortly
Since the framing of the Rules involved lot of administrative complications and unavoidable delay the Government took a policy decision that in regard to various procedures concerning such newly designated Section Officers the Rules under which they were functioning earlier namely Rules applicable to non Gazetted Government servants should continue to apply till such time as Service Rules are made with a view to avoid administrative dislocation
This decision was the subject of Government order No 1782 Public Services J dated June 27 1973
The net effect of this order was that although the Superintendents were given a Gazetted status and their designations were changed into Section Officers with effect from June 13 1973 but in all matters relating lo appointments transfers
postings punishments and drawl of pay they continued to be treated as non Gazetted Government servant until further orders
The question is whether the expression appointments used in this Government order dated June 13 1973 will include termination  of service or compulsory retirement  from service also
It is a fundamental principle of interpretation that unless a contrary intention appears from the context a power to appoint should include a power to terminate the appointment including termination of the person 475 appointed by his compulsorily retirement in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service
This fundamental principle underlies Section 16 of the General Clauses Act
In other words the power to terminate the appointment by compulsory retirement or otherwise is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an incident to or consequences of the power
There is nothing in the Government order No 1782 dated June 27 1973 which militates against this rule of construction
The above being the true construction of the word appointments  in the aforesaid Government order of June 27 1973 notwithstanding the conferment of Gazetted status the respondent continued to be governed inter alia in the matter of appointment  which would include compulsory retirement or termination of service also by the Rules and Government orders applicable to non Gazetted Officers of the Secretariat and therefore the Review Committee presided over by a Departmental Secretary set up for reviewing the cases of non Gazetted officers of the Secretariat was fully competent to consider the case of the respondent and recommend his retirement
Assuming that there was some irregularity in the constitution of the Review Committee which dealt with the case of the respondent that could not affect the validity of the impunged orders
The decisions of the Review Committee had no force proprio vigore
At best the decisions  were mere recommendations which did not and could not have a peremptory effect
The ultimate power to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the Review Committee and to take an effective and definitive decision in the matter vested in the Government
Thus even if there was some irregularity in the constitution of the Review Committee
the functions of which were purely advisory that could not by itself have the effect of vitiating the order of the respondent s compulsory retirement passed by the Government in the exercise of the power vested in it
Furthermore it was not the respondent alone from the category of Section Officers whose case was reviewed by the Review Committee in question
The cases of all the Section Officers of the Secretariat were reviewed by the same Committee
It could not therefore be contended that the respondent had been singled out for a differential treatment
Article 14 of the Constitution was not attracted and the respondent could not have any grievance on that score
For the foregoing reasons we allow this appeal set aside the order of the High Court and uphold the order of the respondent s compulsory retirement
The parties shall pay and bear their own costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
Before June 27 1973 a Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat used to be a non Gazetted officer
The Government by order GO Ms No 1616 Public Services J dated June 13 1973 made the post of a Superintendent of the Secretariat a Gazetted post and re designated it as Section Officer and by Government order No 1782 Public Services J dated June 27 1973 provided that in all matters relating to appointments transfers postings punishments and drawl of pay they continued to be treated as non gazetted Government servants until further orders The respondent was recruited as a Clerk in the Indian Army in the year 1943 and after demobilization was appointed in the Revenue Secretariat of the State Government Appellant from March 1948
He was promoted as Section Officer in April 1969 and he continued in the post till March 2 1976 when he was compulsorily retired from service under Fundamental Rule 56d
The respondent challenged his compulsory retirement in the High Court contending that the procedure set out in GO No 761 dated March 19 1973 envisaged that the Review Committee that had to consider the cases of Gazetted Government officers in the Secretariat should be headed by the Chief Secretary and not by the Departmental Secretary and since the Committee which reviewed his case was headed by a Departmental Secretary the violation had vitiated the retirement order
The High Court accepted this contention and quashed the retirement order In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that though under G O No 1782 Public Service J dated June 27 1973 all Superintendents or Section officers were given the status of Gazetted Officers in matters like appointments transfer and posting they continued to be treated as non gazetted officers and that the constitution of the Review Committee headed by a Departmental Secretary was valid
It was also contended that in the aforesaid order the word appointments  includes compulsory retirements  also
On the respondent s behalf it was submitted that the word appointments  in the order dated June 27 1973 cannot be construed to include retirements  from or terminations  of service for if that had been the intention there would not have been no difficulty in adding the word retirements  or terminations  along 472 with the words appointments transfers postings and punishments  in the Government order and consequently a restricted interpretation should be placed on this expression
Allowing the appeal  HELD 1
The order of the High Court is set aside and the order or the respondent s compulsory retirement upheld
475 H 2
Unless a contrary intention appears from the context a power to appoint should include a power to terminate the appointment including termination by compulsory retirement in accordance with the terms and conditions of service
This fundamental principle underlies Section 16 of the General Clauses Act
474 H 475 A 3
The power to terminate the appointment by compulsory retirement or otherwise is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an incident to or consequences of that power
Nothing in the Government Order No 1782 dated June 27 1973 militates against this rule of construction
475 B 4
The decision  of the Review Committee had no force proprio vigore
The decisions  were mere recommendations which did not and could not have a peremptory effect
The ultimate power to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the Review Committee and to take an effective and definitive decision vests in the Government
Even if there was some irregularity in the constitution of the Review Committee that could not by itself have the effect of vitiating the order of the respondent s compulsory retirement
475E F In the instant case it was not the respondent alone from the category of Section Officers whose case was reviewed by the Review Committee in question
The cases of all the Section officers of the Secretariat were reviewed by the same committee
The respondent had therefore not been singled out for a differential treatment
475G