As Nos
1172 1354 1355 and 1751 of 1972
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 2791971 of the Kerala High Court in OP No 133970 WANo 870 WA No 42069 and OP No 862 of 1969 respectively AND Civil Appeal No 2275 of 1972 679 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18111971 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 566270
AND Civil Appeals Nos
101573 186574 and CA No 50676
From the Judgments and Orders dated the 7 9 72 22 7 74 and 30 101975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos
471771 391474 and 421375 respectively
AND CA No 1866 of 1973 and 186773
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt
the 1521972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 2933 and 338571 respectively AND Civil Appeal No 1234 of 1974
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18101973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in SA No 360 of 1972
AND Civil Appeal Nos
1300 and 1393 of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated the 5 12 1975 of the
Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos 414  415 of 1975
AND Civil Appeal No 1313 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 1031976 of the Orissa High Court in OJC No 53174
Niren De Attorney General of India in CAs 1171 1354 1355 VP Raman Addl
General in CAs 2275 and 1313 with B Datta in CAs 1172 1355 and 2275 and Girish Chandra for the appellants in all the appeals
Vepa Sarathi N Sudhakaran and PK Pillai for respond ents in CA 117272
Vepa Sarathi 1354 KMK Nair and Mrs B Krishnan for respondents in CAs 1354 175172 and 1300 and 1393 of 1976
Mrs section Gopalakrishnan for respondent in CA 1355
K Jayaram and K Ram Kumar for respondents in CAs 1866 67 101573 and 1865 of 1974 and 50676
Mrs Veena Devi Khanna for respondent in CA 227572
CS S Rao for respondent in CA 131376
The respondents in all these fourteen ap peals some of which are on certificate and some by special leave are extra departmental agents connected with the postal department
Six of these
appeals are from the Kerala High Court seven from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and one from
the Orissa High Court
These respondents were either dismissed or removed from service during the period between January 1 1966 and June 18 1974 and admit tedly the order of dismissal or removal was passed without complying with the provisions of Article 3112 of the Constitution
The question in each case is whether the respondent held a civil post as contemplated in Article 311 of the Constitution if he did the dismissal or removal as the case may be would be unquestionably invalid for non compliance with Article 3112
The conditions of service of the respondents are gov erned by a body of rules called the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents Conduct and Service Rules 1964 hereinafter called the rules issued under the authority of the Government of India
Rule 2b of the rules defining Extra Departmental Agent includes within the category among others Extra Departmental Sub Postmaster s Extra Departmental Branch postmasters Extra Departmental Delivery Agents and several sections of class IV employees
Eleven of the respondents arc extra departmental branch postmas ters one is an extra departmental delivery agent and two are class IV extra departmental employees
In all these cases the High Courts have found that the respondents held civil posts under the Union of India and the orders termi nating their services in violation of Article 311 2 of the Constitution were invalid
This Court in State of Assam and others vs Kanak Chandra Dutta1 has explained what a civil post is
In that case the respondent who was a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley was dismissed from service in disregard of the provi sions of Article 311 2
It was held that having regard to the existing system of his recruitment employment and functions he was a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State and therefore entitled to the protection of Article 3112
This Court observed   a civil post means a post not connected with defence and outside the regu lar civil services
A post is a service or employment  
There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it
The exist ence of this relationship is indicated by the State s right to select and appoint the holder of the post its right to suspend and dismiss him its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration
 1 19671 SCR 679 682
681 A post it was explained exists apart from the holder of the post
A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it
A post is an employment but every employment is not a post
A casual labourer is not the holder of a post
A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State
The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post
 Turning now to the rules by which the respondents were admittedly gov erned it appears that they contain elaborate provisions controlling the appointment leave termination of services nature of penalties procedure for imposing penalties and other matters relating to the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents
There is a schedule annexed to the rules naming the appointing authorities in respect of each category of employees
Rule 5 states that the employ ees governed by these rules shall be entitled to such leave as may be determined by the Government from time to time and provides that if an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and granted to him or if an employee who is granted leave is absent from duty for any period exceeding the limit upto which he could have been granted leave he shall be removed from the service unless the Government decides otherwise in the exceptional circumstances of any particular case
The services of employees who had not put in more than three years  continu ous service are liable to be terminated at any time under rule 6 for unsatisfactory work or for any administrative reason
The rules also indicate the nature of penalties which may be imposed on an employee and the procedure for imposing them
A right of appeal is provided against an order imposing any of the penalties on the employee
Various other conditions of service are also provided in these rules
It is thus clear that an extra departmental agent is not a casual worker but he holds a post under the administrative control of the State
It is apparent from the rules that the employment of an extra departmental agent is in a post which exists apart from the person who happens to fill it at any particular  time
Though such a post is outside the regular civil services there is no doubt it is a post under the State
The tests of a civil post laid down by this Court in Kanak Chandra Dutta s case supra are clearly satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents
For the appellants it is contended that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is not of master and servant but really of principal and agent
The difference between the relations of master and servant and principal and agent was pointed out by this Court in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd vs The Gov ernment of Hyderabad
1 On page 401 of the report the following lines from Halsbury s Laws of England Hailsham edition Volume 1 at page 193 article 345 were quoted with approval in explaining the difference 1  682 An agent is to be distinguished on the one hand from a servant and on the other from an independent contractor
A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master and is bound to conform to all reasonable orders given him in the course of his work an independent contractor on the other hand is entirely independent of any control or interference and merely undertakes to produce a specified result employing his own means to produce that result
An agent though bound to exercise his authority in accordance with all lawful instructions which may be given to him from time to time by his principal is not subject in its exercise to the direct control or supervision of the principal
An agent as such is not a servant but a servant is generally for some purposes his master s implied agent the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant
 The rules make it clear that these extra departmental agents work  under the direct control and supervision of the authorities who obviously have the right to control the manner in which they must carry out theft duties
There can be no doubt therefore that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is one of master and servant
Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on two decisions one of the Orissa High Court Venkata Swamy vs Superintendent Post Offices1 and the other of the Madras High Court V Subbaravalu vs Superin tendent of Post Offices2 The judgment in these cases were rendered before the elaborate rules governing the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents were brought into operation in 1964
We do not therefore think an examination of these two decisions will be relevant or useful for disposing of the appeals before us
The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs one set o hearing fee in respect of all the appeals except CA 1172 of of 1972 and CA 2275 of 1972 in which separate orders as to costs was made earlier
SR Appeals dismissed 1 AIR 1957 Orissa 112
2 AIR 1961 Madras 166


Summary:
The respondents in all these appeals are extra depart mental agents within the meaning of Rule 2b of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents Conduct of Service Rules 1964 issued under the authority of the Government of India
They were either dismissed or removed from service during the period between January 1 1966 and June 18 1974 admittedly without complying with the provi sions of article 3112 of the Constitution
The question in each case is whether the respondent held a civil post as contemplated in article 3112 of the Constitution
The High Court of Kerala Andhra Pradesh  Orissa held that the respondents held a civil post under the Union of India and the orders terminating their services in violation of article 3112 of the Constitution were invalid
Dismissing the appeals the Court HELD 1 An extra departmental agent held a civil post and his dismissal or removal would be invalid if there was non compliance with article 311 2 of the Constitu tion
680 B C 682 E 2 An extra departmental agent is not a casual worker but he holds a post under the administrative control of the State
It is apparent from the 1964 Rules that the em ployment of an extra departmental agent is in a post which exists apart from the person who happens to fill it at any particular time
Though such a post is outside the regular civil service there is no doubt it is a post under the State
681 E F State of Assam  Ors
vs Kanak Chandra Dutta   682 applied
3 The 1964 rules make it clear that these extra departmental agents work under the direct control and super vision of the authority who obviously have the right to control the manner in which they must carry out their du ties
There can be no doubt therefore that the relation ship between the Postal Authorities and the extra departmen tal agents are of master and servant
662 C E Venkataswamy vs Superintendent Post Offices AIR 1957 Orissa 112 V Subbaravalu vs Superintendent of Post Offices AIR 1961 Madras 166 held inapplicable