Case: Director Of Panchayat Raj &amp; Anr Vs. Babu Singh Gaur

for no other purpose. That order did not convert the appointments of the temporary Government servants in those departments either into permanent appointments or into temporary appointments in substantive capacity in permanent post.13. A temporary Government servant does not become a permanent Government servant unless he gets that capacity either under some rule or he is declared or appointed by the Government as a permanent Government servant. Our attention has not been invited to any under which respondent in these appeals can be considered as having been appointed either permanently or in a substantive capacity to permanent posts. All along they continued to be temporary Government servants whether the posts held by them were temporary posts or permanent posts.14. This Court in Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, [1958 - I L.L.J. 544]; (1958) S.C.R. 828, considered in detail the nature of posts held by Government servant. Dealing with the question of substantive appointment of a person to a temporary post, this Court observed at pages 842 and 843 of the report :"The substantive appointment to a temporary post, under the rules, used to give the servant so appointed certain benefits regarding pay and leave, but was otherwise on the same footing as appointment to a temporary post on probation or on an officiating basis, that is to say, terminable by notice except where under the rules promulgated in 1949 to which reference will hereafter be made, his service had ripened into what is called a quasi-permanent service."15. It may be noted that in that case this Court was considering the effect of Fundamental Rules. In these appeals also we are concerned with those Rules. After dealing with the nature of the various appointments, this Court observed :"The position may, therefore, be summarised as follows : In the absence of any special contract the substantive appointment to a permanent post gives the servant so appointed a right to hold the post until, under the rules, he attains the age of superannuation or is compulsorily retired after having put in the prescribed number of years service or the post is abolished and his service cannot be terminated except by way of punishment for misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or any other disqualification found against him on proper enquiry after due notice to him. An appointment to a temporary post for a certain specified period also gives the servant so appointed a right to hold the post for the entire period of his tenure and his tenure cannot be put an end to during that period unless he is, by way of punishment, dismissed or removed from the service. Except in these two cases, the appointment to a post, permanent or temporary, on probation or on officiating basis or a substantive appointment to a temporary post gives to the servant so appointed no right to the post and his service may be terminated unless his service had ripened into what is, in the service rules, called a quasi-permanent service."16. In State of Nagaland v. G. Vasantha, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 537, this Court was called upon to decide the validity of termination of service of a Government servant by giving him notice of termination as prescribed in the relevant rules. Therein, the concerned Government servant had been appointed purely on temporary basis. The post to which he was appointed was also a temporary post. Sometime after his appointment that post was converted into a permanent post. But his services were terminated. The question was whether because of the conversion of the post into a permanent post, he ceased to be a temporary Government servant. Reversing the decision of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, this Court held that the fact that the post which he was holding was converted into a permanent post did not confer on him any additional right. His service was terminable by giving him the prescribed notice under the rules.17. A question similar to the one before us came up for consideration before this Court in State of U.P. v. Abdul Khalik, (C.A. Nos. 782 and 783 of 1966, dated 30-4-1969). The facts of that case were substantially similar to the facts in these appeals. Therein this Court reversing the decision of the Allahabad High Court held that the service of the respondent therein was validly terminated by giving him one months notice. Speaking for the Court Sikri, J. (our present Chief Justice) observed :"The learned counsel for the State contends that the plaintiff was a temporary servant and his services were liable to be terminated on a months notice and the fact that he was holding appointment as temporary substantive does not make the plaintiff a permanent Government servant. There is force in this contention. The learned counsel for the plaintiff was not able to point out any material to show that a person who is appointed temporary substantive can be equated with a permanent Government servant. It is clear from the order dated May 22, 1956, that only certain posts were made permanent while by the order dated December 12, 1957, certain other persons were made permanent Government servants. The plaintiff cannot claim to be a permanent Government servant till he is declared or appointed as such."18. In that case this Court had to consider the scope of the rule framed by the Governor under Art. 309 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the ratio of that decision completely covers the point under consideration. That decision was tried to be distinguished on the ground that in that case, only some out of the several temporary posts had been converted into permanent posts, whereas in the cases before us all the temporary posts had been converted into permanent posts. We do not think this difference has any bearing on the ratio of that decision. The ratio of that decision is that a Government servant temporarily appointed does not get a right to the post merely because the post held by him is converted into a permanent post.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. It is clear from the rules as well as the order of the Governor that they merely dealt with leave and increment. That order has nothing to do with the nature of the appointment. The fact that for certain specified purposes those temporary appointments were to be considered to be in a substantive capacity, does not mean that the appointees were holding the posts in question in a substantive capacity for all purposes. For purposes other than mentioned in the order, their appointments continue to be temporary.11. The learned Judge of the Letters Patent Bench thought that as Babu Singh Gaur and Jugal Kishore Bhatt were holding their posts in a substantive capacity, though temporarily, after the posts held by them were made permanent, they must be held to have been holding those permanent post in a substantive capacity. In our opinion this is an erroneous reasoning. The order which converted those temporary posts into permanent temporary posts into permanent posts specifically stated that "order regarding the confirmation of individual officers in these posts will issue separately". At the time of the conversion of temporary post into permanent post, the Government did not consider the question as to who all should be confirmed. Obviously the Government wanted to consider that question separately.12. The substantive capacity conferred on the officers holding temporary posts in the Sales Tax department as well as in the Panchayat Raj department was for a specific purpose, i.e., counting leave for increment purpose; and for no other purpose. That order did not convert the appointments of the temporary Government servants in those departments either into permanent appointments or into temporary appointments in substantive capacity in permanent post.13. A temporary Government servant does not become a permanent Government servant unless he gets that capacity either under some rule or he is declared or appointed by the Government as a permanent Government servant. Our attention has not been invited to any under which respondent in these appeals can be considered as having been appointed either permanently or in a substantive capacity to permanent posts. All along they continued to be temporary Government servants whether the posts held by them were temporary posts or permanent posts.In that case this Court had to consider the scope of the rule framed by the Governor under Art. 309 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the ratio of that decision completely covers the point under consideration. That decision was tried to be distinguished on the ground that in that case, only some out of the several temporary posts had been converted into permanent posts, whereas in the cases before us all the temporary posts had been converted into permanent posts. We do not think this difference has any bearing on the ratio of that decision. The ratio of that decision is that a Government servant temporarily appointed does not get a right to the post merely because the post held by him is converted into a permanent post.