Commodore Commanding, Cochin vs V.N. Rajan

No reason at all was as much as alleged, far less shown, why the appellant chose to terminate the respondent''s services under rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, such as that it was administratively convenient to do so, or that the respondent''s work or conduct was unsatisfactory or again (what was admittedly not the case here) that it was a case of retrenchment and the respondent was chosen for some relevant reason such as that he was the junior-most. The learned single judge was therefore quite right in holding that the appellant''s action was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and it seems to us that Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs. The Union of India (UOI), fully supports this stand. Appeal dismissed.