Case: Hartwell Prescott Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh Government &amp; Others

From the affidavits filed in the High Court by the Personal Assistant to the Director of Agriculture of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the appellant, it would appear that the appellant was appointed from time to time in a temporary capacity to the Subordinate Agricultural Service of the Uttar Pradesh Government by the Director of Agriculture. He served in that service during the periods detailed below:-(a) In Group II of the subordinates Agricultural Service:(i) From 16th November 1936 to 18th March 1937.(ii) From 1st April 1937 to 29th June 1937.(iii) From 9th August 1937 to 31st December 1937.(iv) From 6th January 1938 to 22th February 1943.(b) In Group I of the Subordinate Agricultural23rd February 1943 to 24th AprilWhile he was still in the Subordinate Agricultural service he was appointed to officiate in the United Provinces Agricultural Service Class II as a Divisional Superintendent of Agriculture with effect from 25th April 1944, with the approval of the Public Service Commission of the United Provinces. He served in Class II of the United Provinces Agricultural Service in a temporary capacity for about ten years when he was reverted to his original appointment in the Subordinate Agricultural Service by an order of the Uttar Pradesh Government dated 3rd Mayappellant protested against his reversion and handed over charge on 16th May 1954 and went on leave until 2nd OctoberIn the meanwhile a notice dated 13th September 1954, terminating the appellants services in the Subordinate Agricultural Service was issued to him by the Director of Agriculture. The notice purported to be under R.cl. (4) of the Subordinate Agriculture Service Rules. This notice stated that the appellants services would not be required after the expiry of one month from the date of the issue of the order terminating hisappellant challenged the validity of the aforesaid orders of reversion and termination of his services. The High Court in dismissing his application came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been dismissed or removed from service and that Art. 311 of the Constitution did not apply in the circumstances of the case. The High Court dismissed an application filed by the appellant for the issue of a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
In our opinion, the finding of the High Court that the appellant had failed to establish that he was confirmed as a member of the Subordinate Agricultural Service, based upon the materials before it, was a correctfurther finding of the High Court that the appellants contention that he had been absorbed in the permanent cadre of the United Provinces Agricultural Service had not been substantiated appears to us also to be correct finding upon the materials on theprinciple, we cannot see any clear distinction between the termination of the services of a person under the terms of a contract governing him and the termination of his services in accordance with the terms of his conditions of service. The order complained against did not contravene the provisions of Art. 311 and was therefore, a valid order.Reversion from a temporary post held by a person does not per se amount to reduction in rank because the temporary post held by him is not his substantive rank. For the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to decide in what circumstances a reversion would be regarded as reduction in rank as the appellant has not established as a fact that the order of reversion passed against him was by way of a penalty.The order of reversion, therefore, did not contravene the provisions of Art. 311 and was a valid order.