Case: G. S. Gill And Ors Vs. The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

1. The appellants filed a petition before the High Court of Punjab under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution for quashing the orders passed by the State of Punjab reverting them from the posts held by them in an officiating capacity in the cadre ande posts of senior scale of Indian Administrative Service to their substantive posts in the State Civil Service from which they were promoted2. The appellants contended before the High Court that the orders of reversion were punitive in character and, therefore, attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and since they were given no reasonable opportunity to make their representations against the reversion, the orders were bad and prayed for quashing them. The High Court overruled the contention and dismissed the petition. This appeal, by certificate, is against that order.

Reasoning:
e posts by State Government can only be in terms of the second proviso to Rule 4 (2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 19545. Even if it be assumed that the State Government could appoint any person to thesee posts the appointment must necessarily be temporary appointment. So far as appellants 1. 3 and 5 are concerned, there can be no doubt that since the appointments were made by the State Government to cadre posts in the Indian Administrative Service, the appointments could not have been in any capacity other than in an officiating capacity under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) RulesIf the appointments were officiating appointments, whether of the type mentioned in the first portion of the meaning of the word officiate in F. R. 9 (19) or in its latter part, there can be no doubt that the reversion of the appellants to their substantive posts in the State Civil Service would not attract the application of Article 311 unless the orders of reversion cast stigma and were, therefore punitive in character. There is no case that orders of reversion cast any stigma upon the appellants. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828   = (AIR 1958 SC 36  ), is clear authority for the proposition that unless a person has a right to a post, a simple order of reversion from that post cannot amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 and that a person gets a right to a post only when he is substantively appointed to it8. As appellants 1, 3 and 5 were appointed under Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules there can be no doubt that the State Government was competent to terminate their appointments at any time (see Union of India v. M. L. Capoor. AIR 1974 Sc 87   at p. 103)9. The appellants have not made out their case as specified in the writ petition or as urged by them before the High Court.