Gangadhariah Soma Sehkhar vs The State of Himachal Pradesh etc.

Chet Ram Thakur, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Horticulturist (Raisin Grapes) Chini (now Kalpa) in Gazetted Class I Junior Scale of Rs. 350-850 on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission by an order, dated 19th June, 1959, (Annexure ''A'') with effect from 15th May, 1959, in the then Department of Agriculture.

According to the Petitioner he had become quasi-permanent employee of the Himachal Pradesh Government under Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the Rules) after having put in three years'' service. Thereafter by a notification, dated 6th December, 1964, he was transferred as Horticultural Officer, Regional Fruit Research Station, Mashobra, where he assumed the charge of the post on the 30th March, 1965. The said post was declared a permanent Post vide order No. 11-28/62 U.T., dated the 3rd January, 1963, from the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

The Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, came into force on 22nd July, 1970, and it was provided u/s 24 of the said Act for the constitution of the Agricultural Complex consisting amongst others of Research Stations as may be transferred by the State Government to the University from time to time. By an order, dated 3rd July, 1971, (Annexure ''D''), the Petitioner was informed that the Himachal Pradesh Government had decided to transfer the administrative control of the Agriculture/Horticulture Research Station/Sections and Institutions presently under the Government control to the Himachal Pradesh University and consequently the posts of those Research Sections, Stations and Institutions would become surplus to the requirements of the Department of Agriculture and rendered redundant, and those posts were, therefore, abolished. He was, therefore, served with a notice as required under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules informing that his services will stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him and that all the terminal benefits as admissible under the rules will be allowed. He was further informed that the comparable post carrying the same designation, pay scale and status presently held by him was available with the Himachal Pradesh University against which they had agreed to offer him employment if he was willing to serve under them. On such employment by the University he would be governed by the terms and conditions as stated therein. Further that if he was not willing to the said arrangement then that notice of termination of service would become effective after expiry of one month from the date on which that was served on, or as the case may be, tendered to him.

He made a representation requesting for his confirmation in the Agriculture Department and further that he may be sent on deputation to Himachal Pradesh University till such time the University framed and circulated terms of appointment/service, he would remain as a Government employee having rights of promotion, transfer, etc. in both the departments, viz- Agriculture and Horticulture Departments. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification, dated 14th July, 1971, transferred the Regional Fruit Research Station at Mashobra to the University with effect from 17th July, 1971, even before the completion of the period of one month''s notice (Annexure ''D''), dated 3rd July, 1971, The Petitioner was informed vide letter, dated 15th July, 1971, (Annexure ''G'') that his services shall stand terminated after expiry of one month from the date the notice was served and tendered to him, viz., 2nd August, 1971. He, however, represented his case.

Later on, he wrote to the Secretary (Agriculture) Himachal Pradesh Government on 26th July, 1971, that he was sending his willingness in compliance with Memorandum, dated 3rd July, 1971, (Annexure ''D'' ) without prejudice to his claim and rights with the Himachal Pradesh Government (Annexure ''I''). He assumed the charge of the post of Horticultural Officer, Regional Fruit Research Station, Mashobra, under the Himachal Pradesh University on 3rd August, 1971 (forenoon), vide joining report (Annexure ''J'') to the petition.

He was later on informed by the Joint Secretary (Agriculture), Himachal Pradesh Government, vide Annexure ''K.'', dated 5th August, 1971, with reference to his letter, dated 26th July, 1971, that his application for employment in the University can be recommended on compassionate grounds but the authority to give him employment was the University. Apart from the recommendations the Government could do nothing else in the matter. The University, vide letter (Annexure ''L'')'' dated 23rd October, 1971, appointed the Petitioner as Horticultural Officer, Mashobra, in the scale of Rs. 400-40-800-50- 950 at Rs. 750.00 (Rs. 720-00 plus Rs. 30.00 as P. P. to be absorbed in future increments) plus other allowances as admissible under the rules with effect from 3rd August, 1971 (F.N.) as a temporary measure till further orders.

The Petitioner submits that on 3rd July, 1971, when the impugned notice (Annexure ''D'') was issued he was working as Gazetted Glass I Officer in Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Department in the scale of Rs. 400-30-550/40-750/50-1250 against a permanent post. The services of the Petitioner had been transferred to the University although the persons, who were junior to the Petitioner in Class I Gazetted posts of Himachal Pradesh Government Agriculture/Horticulture Departments having the same pay scale had been retained in, Government service and the Petitioner''s services were terminated and thereby he was discriminated against. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the orders, dated 3rd July, 1971 (Annexure ''D''), 15th July, 1971 (Annexure ''G''), 5th August, 1971 (Annexure ''K'') and the Office Order, dated 23rd October, 1971 (Annexure ''L'') on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed by the Under Secretary, who is not the appointing authority and is an authority subordinate to the appointing authority of the Petitioner and as such the orders are violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India.

Further he was appointed on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission and, therefore, the orders were in contravention of the provisions of Article 320(3)(b) and (c) of the Constitution for not having consulted the Union Public Service Commission. The Petitioner was a permanent employee and, therefore, his services could not be terminated as a temporary employee. The action of the Respondents is punitive in the extreme and deserves to be struck down. He also averred that if he had continued in Government service he would have reasonable chances of promotion whereas in the University there are only three posts and, therefore, he has been deprived of promotion chances and of working at various places in different posts which chance he would have in Government service. It was also averred that the impugned orders are violative of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and are also violative of the principles of natural justice. The actions of the Respondents were also in violation of Articles 426 and 428. The Petitioner was a holder of the permanent post at the relevant time and the Rule 5 of the Rules is not applicable in his case. Therefore, the impugned orders amount to his removal from service by way of punishment.

Shri K. C. Pandeya, Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Agriculture, filed the return affidavit on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was averred that the Petitioner was appointed against a temporary post and that he had not been declared quasi-permanent and still continues to be a temporary hand. The Petitioner was paid his salary for full month after he was served with one month''s notice on 14th July, 1971. It was averred that the Petitioner did not accept the offer of employment under the University carrying the same pay scale, status and designation and, therefore, Para 5 of the notice, already served on the Petitioner, became operative. The Petitioner was specifically recruited to a research post through the Union Public Service Commission and, therefore, he has no claim for seniority in Class I post of the Agriculture/Horticulture Department. The acceptance of the post in the Himachal Pradesh University by the Petitioner came late and also with certain reservations and in the meantime the University had already been informed of the decision of the Government of termination of services of the Petitioner with effect from 2nd August, 1971. As the services of the Petitioner stood terminated under the Government after the expiry of the period of notice the Government could not ask the University to offer him alternative employment carrying the same pay, scale, designation and status as was initially offered to him. The officers retained in the Departments of Agriculture and Horticulture were not working in the research side and were not specifically recruited for research posts.

The allegations of discrimination were refuted as the persons whose names have been mentioned in the petition and have been retained in the Government service were not appointed as research assistants. The Petitioner had never worked in the common cadre of the Assistant Horticulturists/Horitcultural Development Officers and he was recruited as a direct candidate against a temporary post through the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Hortiultural Officer (Raisin Grapes) under the research side. He had, therefore, no claim for being adjusted elsewhere other than to his own post to which he was recruited. He had no inter-se seniority in any class with the officers mentioned by him and retained in the Department of Horticulture as a result of their options exercised long before the Petitioner was served with the notice. The orders of the Government of Himachal Pradesh were authenticated by the Joint Secretary (Agriculture) who is competent to do so. The orders were not in fact passed by the Under Secretary and, therefore, there was no violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution nor his services were terminated as a result of disciplinary proceedings but due to reduction of establishment and abolition of posts for which the consultation of the Commission is not necessary.

The Petitioner, it may be stated, has averred in Clause (c) of para 23 of the petition that he successfully completed his three years'' service on 14th May, 1962, on which date it was incumbent on the State Government to have declared the Petitioner as quasi- permanent. Having failed to do so, according to the Petitioner, he was deemed to be quasi-permanent with effect from 15th May, 1962, when he completed three years of service and cannot be termed as a temporary employee. Under Rule 2(6) of the Rules "quasi-Permanent Service" means, temporary service commencing from the date on which a declaration made under Rule 3 takes effect and consists of period of duty and leave (other than extraordinary leave after that date). So from this it follows that before a person can claim quasi- permanent status there must be a declaration issued by the appointing authority in that behalf. Therefore, the submission of the Petitioner that after the expiry of three years service he had automatically become quasi-permanent is not correct unless a declaration in that behalf had already been issued by the competent authority. Merely because the Petitioner had been working against a permanent post will also not entitle him to claim a status of a permanent civil servant. Therefore, for all intents and purposes he would be treated as a temporary Government servant. In this behalf reference may be made to Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs. The Union of India (UOI), which also lays down as under:

Rule 3 must be read with Rule 2(6) which defines "Quasi-permanent service". Context of Rule 3 itself requires that that rule must be read in harmony with the definition of "Quasi-permanent service" in Rule 2(b), for it could not possibly be the intention of the rule making authority to create disharmony between the definition in Rule 2(4) and the provision in Rule 3. Under Rule 2(b) quasi-permanent service begins from the date on which a declaration is issued under Rule 3. It follows therefore that before a Government servant can be deemed to be a quasi-permanent service a declaration must be issued under the second subclause of Rule 3, for that is the sine qua non for the commencement of quasi-pemanent service. Without such a declaration quasi-permanet service connot begin. Therefore, reading these two rules together the conclusion is inevitable that the two subclauses of Rule 3 must be read conjunctively and both conditions must be fulfilled before a Government servant can be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service, namely, (i) that he has been in continuous government service for more than three years, and (ii) that the appointing authority after satisfying itself as to suitability in various respects for employment in quasi-permanent capacity has issued a declaration to that effect.

This authority, therefore, leaves no manner of doubt to hold that the Petitioner was a temporary employee and he could not be termed as a quasi-permanet servant unless a declaration had been made in that behalf irrespective of the fact that he had completed three years service and had been working against a permanent post for considerably a long period. Therefore, this question needs no further discussion.

The further point that arises in this case is whether the impugned orders (Annexure ''F'', ''G'', and ''K'') are not passed by the competent authority. A very perusal of Annexure ''F'' would reveal that it is passed by the Governor and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that it is not the order passed by the Governor. The other order is Annexure ''G'' whereby the Petitioner was informed that his services shall stand terminated after expiry of one month from the date the notice was served and tendered to him, viz., 2nd August, 1971- At the top the subject written is "Transfer of staff to Himachal Pradesh University". This letter was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 15th July, 1971 to the Petitioner. The submission with regard to this letter is that it is not passed by the Governor and so is the criticism levelled against Annexure ''K'', dated 5th August, 1971, the subject of which is also "Transfer of Research Stations to Himachal Pradesh University" and by this letter also the Petitioner had been informed that his application for employment in the University can be recommended on compassionate grounds, but the authority to give him employment is the University. This letter is also signed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The submission made is that these letters are not authenticated nor there appear the name of the Governor and as such these orders are bad in law. Reliance is placed on (1) R. Chitralekha and Another Vs. State of Mysore and Others,

Before I refer to the observations made in this case, I may refer to the reply given by the Respondent to the allegations made in this petition.

I have seen the relevant Paras 10, 11 and 15 of the petition in which he has mentioned that these orders (Annexures ''F'', ''C and ''K'') had been issued. But it may be mentioned that the Petitioner did not lay any foundation in the averments so as to attack these orders on the grounds that are sought to be urged during the course of arguments. If that is so the Respondents also could not give any reply whether the same were issued under the orders of the Government and it not what was the effect.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits this fact that no foundation was laid in the averments. But he contends that he had taken up this objection in Para 15 of the rejoinder that the order was not expressed in the name of the Governor. Undoubtedly he has stated in Para 15 of the rejoinder that the impugned order not having been passed by the appointing authority and even otherwise the notice being defective is not valid for termination. In the absence of any foundation laid by the Petitioner in the petition as to how these orders were bad, he cannot now be permitted to raise this objection. In so far as the objection taken up in the rejoinder is concerned, the Respondents did not have any opportunity to rebut the same. Therefore, this matter which had not been raised in the petition cannot be allowed to be taken by the Petitioner during the course of arguments.

In view of this the observations made in R. Chitralekha and Another Vs. State of Mysore and Others, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. It says that if the conditions laid down in Article 166 had been complied with the order could not have been called in question on the ground that it was not an order made by the Government. Further it was held therein that it was settled law that the provisions of the article were only directory and not mandatory in character and if they were not complied with it could still be established as a question of fact that the impugned order was issued in fact by the Slate Government or the Governor. The Respondents, therefore, could prove that impugned order was issued in fact by Government or the Governor. If we look closely the Annexurcs ''F'', ''G'' and ''K'', it would be apparent that they arc not in fact the orders whereby the services of the Petitioner were terminated. Annexure ''F'' is a notification whereby on the establishment of Himachal Pradesh University, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh was pleased to transfer the Agricultural/Horticultural Research Sections, Stations and Institutions of the Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh to the Himachal Pradesh University in pursuance of Section 24(d) of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, with effect from 17th July, 1971. Annexure ''G'', which is a letter dated 15th July, 1971, as already stated, refers to his letter, dated 3rd July, 1971 which in fact is Annexure ''D'' whereby he was informed about the transfer of the Horticulture Research Sections, Stations and Institutions wherein he was working and that he would be offered a comparable post carrying the same designation, pay-scale and status as were held by him at that time and he was required to signify his assent in enclosed form II on or before 10th July, 1971. In case he was not agreeable to the arrangement, then the notice of termination of services will become effective after expiry of one month Irom the date on which it was served on or as the case may be tendered to him. Annexure ''K'' dated 5th August, 1971, is also a letter with reference to the letter of the Petitioner, dated 26th July, 1971, regarding offer of employment to him in Himachal Pradesh University. Therefore, it also cannot be treated to be an order whereby his services were terminated. So by no stretch of imagination it can be said that these were the orders whereby his services were terminated and these orders should necessarily be expressed to have been taken in the name of the Governor or Government. These are letters of routine type and by these letters the services of the Petitioner were not terminated rather it was a correspondence exchanged between the Petitioner and the authorities concerned.

In so far as the Annexure ''D'' is concerned which can be treated to be an order, it is merely stated therein that the Himachal Pradesh Government have decided to transfer the administrative control of the Agriculture/Horticulture Research Sections, Stations and Institutions and this letter purports to have been signed by the joint Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is not authenticated.

The Governor has framed the rules known as ''''Rules of Business of the Government" in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 2(d) "Secretary"'' means the Chief Secretary and a Secretary to the Government of the State of Himachal Pradesh and includes a Special Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and an Under Secretary. Rule 6 empowers the Governor to allocate the Business of the Government among the Ministers by assigning one or more departments to the charge of a Minister, and in case where orders allocating Business have to issue urgently, the allocation may be made by the Chief Minister and the cases submitted to the Governor. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 the Minister with whom a Deputy Minister is attached, may, with the approval of the Chief Minister allocate to him any Business pertaining to the department. By another Notification of 25th January, 1971, the Governor framed the rules known as "The Business of the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Allocation) Rules, 1971" and according to Rule 4 of these Rules there shall be a Secretary for each department who shall be the official Head of the Department. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Joint Secretary who is also included within the definition of the Secretaries as defined in the Rules of Business of the Government of Himachal Pradesh is the official Head of the Department and it is clear from the record that the matter in question went right up to the Minister concerned. In these circumstances, Annexure ''D'' which is in fact the letter whereby a notice was issued to him terminating his services in case he did not agree to go to the University on comparable post, can be said to be the order terminating his services. But he has not made any challenge with regard to this Annexure ''D'' that it was not authenticated or expressed in the name of the Government or the Governor. But the position is that it is expressed in the name of the Government and it is signed by the competent person, i.e., the Chief Secretary and the record shows that the case had gone right up to the Governor and that satisfies the conditions of Article 166 of the Constitution. Therefore, the other documents even if they arc not authenticated have got no relevancy.

The Petitioner also urged that there was violation of Article 14 inasmuch as the services of persons who were junior to the Petitioner in gazetted posts in the Agriculture/Horticulture Department having the same pay scale had been retained on the Government side whereas his services were terminated and as such the order of the Government (Annexure ''D'') was liable to be quashed and he has placed reliance on a number of authorities. The first authority is State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. The Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1973 (1) S. L. R. 1112. According to this authority it had been held that the normal rule for retrenchment is last come first go should be applied but where a Government servant is specifically recruited to a post and the post is abolished, he cannot complain of the violation of any constitutional right. But it is a different matter where a Government servant is a member of a service which includes other employees. In that event the abolition of the post does not result automatically on the termination of the incumbent''s services. He is entitled to continue in Government employment as a member of the service and it will be some other member of the service junior to him who will have to go.

The next authority is Champaklal Chimanlal Shah (supra). In this case it has been laid down that a question of discrimination may arise in a case of retrenchment on account of abolition of one of several temporary posts of the same kind in one office. There can be no dispute with the principles. The Petitioner has to show that because of the abolition of the posts although he was a temporary hand but the persons who were junior to him in the service had been retained so as to make a case for discrimination. The Petitioner admittedly is a temporary Government servant and from the letter of appointment (Annexure ''A'') it would be apparent that the Petitioner was appointed as a Horticulturist (Raisin Grapes), Chini, in Class I (Junior scale). So that would go to show that it was a particular post against which he was appointed and he was not appointed against any other cadre post.

The Respondents have stated in para 9 that the posts of these Institutions became surplus, where the Petitioner was working, to the requirement of the department and rendered redundant. The Petitioner was selected for a specific post which was abolished as a result of transfer of the Institutions to the University and in these circumstances the Petitioner cannot have any claim to be retained on the ground that some other persons had been retained in the Horticulture Agriculture Department when he was specifically appointed against a particular post as a Horticulturist and when that Institution had been transferred, the post had definitely become surplus and it had to be abolished and he was offered a comparable post in the [University and on that matter it cannot be said to be a case of discrimination. The Petitioner had prepared a list of officers (Annexure ''Q,'') to show that they were the persons who were also attached to particular institution, but they had been retained although they were junior to him. May be that they may have been junior in the sense that they were appointed on a later date. But the fact remains that the Petitioner was appointed against a particular post and he was a temporary hand and with the abolition and transfer of the Institution to the University the services of the Petitioner cannot be retained and he cannot complain of discrimination as against the other persons who had been retained because they belonged to the other institutions which had not been transferred.

It had also been contended that the services of the Petitioner had been terminated even before the expiry of the notice period which fact is admitted by the Respondents. But they submit that under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965, the Petitioner was paid his salary for the full month ending on 2nd August, 1971. ''Therefore, on that score he cannot say that the termination order is bad because under the Rules if the services are terminated before the expiry of (the notice the Petitioner who has got a temporary status could only claim pay for the period by which the notice fell short. ''This point, therefore, also fails.

It had also been submitted that he had given his consent for absorption in the University, but he was not given an appointment on the same terms and conditions. But the University gave him a fresh appointment and in this behalf attention is invited to Annexure ''L'' which is a letter for appointment issued by the University appointing him as a Horticultural Officer, Mashobra, as a temporary measure in the scale of Rs. 400-40-800-50-950 fixing his pay at Rs. 750. According to him he was working as a Gazetted class I Officer in the Horticulture/Agriculture Department in the pay scale of Rs. 400-30-550/ 40-750/50-1250 against a permanent post. Any way, this submission of the Petitioner has been held to be wrong that he was a permanent employee.

In so far as the pay scale is concerned that was definitely higher than the scale in which he was fixed by the University. But the reply of the Respondents is that since the services of the Petitioner stood terminated under the Government after the expiry of the period of notice the Government could not ask the University to offer him alternate employment carrying the same pay scale, designation and status as was initially offered to him. ''The Respondents had served the memorandum on the Petitioner whereby he had been informed about the transfer of the administrative control of the Agriculture/ Horticulture Research Sections, Stations and Institutions to the Himachal Pradesh University. He was also informed that a comparable post carrying the same designation, pay scale and status was available with the Himachal Pradesh University against which they had agreed to offer him employment if he was willing to serve them. He was, therefore, called upon to hand over his acknowledgment in Form I in duplicate to his Head Office as also his assent in Form II with that memorandum. It appears that this was delivered to him on the 3rd July, 1971, because he made a representation thereafter in which he gave certain conditions. Annexure ''F'' says that the Horticultural Research Station, i.e., Regional Fruit Research Station, Mashobra, where the Petitioner was working had been transferred to the Himachal Pradesh University and it was further mentioned therein that all the research and non-research staff of the said institutions shall become the employees of the University on their acceptance of the terms and conditions as agreed upon by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the University. He was also informed by Annexure ''G'' with reference to his letter, dated 10th July, 1971, that his services shall stand terminated after expiry of one month from the date the notice was served and tendered to him, viz., 2nd August, 1971, because the memorandum was received by him on the 3rd July, 1971. The Petitioner, it appears, again sent a letter (Annexure ''H'') requesting the Government to either give him deputation terms with the Himachal Pradesh University or revert him to the Agriculture/Horticulture Department and that in case either of those requests were not acceded to within a week from that day, he shall deem himself at liberty to take other steps to safeguard his rights. Thereafter Annexure I, dated 26th July, 1971, was addressed by the Petitioner to the Secretary (Agriculture) and in that letter it is mentioned as:

I, in my representation, dated 10th July, 1971, had clearly pointed out my willingness and desire to work in the said University. I had only asked that I be given some terms of deputation, etc. In spite of it, it appears, that you do not desire even to transfer me to the Himachal Pradesh University, and have chosen to terminate my service from Government.

Thereafter he further stated:

Without prejudice to my claim and rights with the Himachal Pradesh Government, I am sending a Form II, duly signed by me. You are requested to consider it and to issue such further orders as you may deem suitable.

The Form II sent by him along with the representation is to the following effect:

I hereby agree that I am willing to accept the offer of employment under the Himachal Pradesh University, on the terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid letter and I hereby agree to cease to be in the Government service w.e.f. the date I am employed by the Himachal Pradesh University.

Para 4 of Annexure ''D'' would reveal that he was required to signify his assent in the form sent by the Government along with the memorandum on or before 10th July, 1971, and if he had given his assent then it was further stated that in that event he would not be entitled to terminal benefits under the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and his General Provident Fund amount, if any, lying with the Government would be transferred to the Himachal Pradesh University to the parallel provident fund. It appears that the Petitioner did not signify his assent within the period given to him for giving his assent.

According to his reply in Annexure ''I he says that He had given his willingness and desired to work in the University. But a perusal of the Annexure ''E'' would reveal that he was prepared to give his assent only if the Government gave a guarantee for the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. Therefore, on that basis I think the Respondents were justified in taking it that the Petitioner was not willing to join the University. It was, therefore, within its right to terminate the services because of the abolition of the post consequent to the transfer to the University and if the Petitioner at a later stage after the expiry of the period gave his consent and accepted to work in the University then it was not open for the Respondents to give him an equivalent post and it was in the discretion of the University to employ him afresh or on the same old terms and conditions. But he could not claim that post as a matter of right under the conditions given in the memorandum (Annexure ''D''). The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention to Article 426 of the Rules to show that on being discharged owing to the abolition of the post he shall be given an equivalent post in the same pay scale. But I am afraid if this Article 426 is of any help to the Petitioner. In the first instance the Petitioner was not a permanent employee and secondly it says that he shall have an option of taking any compensation, pension or gratuity to which he may be entitled for the service he had already rendered or of accepting another appointment or transfer to another establishment even on a lower pay, if offered and continuing to count his previous service for pension. The Petitioner''s services had been terminated because of the abolition of the post and for his failure to give his assent on or before the 10th of July, 1971.

As for the chances of promotion are concerned I need not dwell on this point because the Petitioner''s services had been terminated on the ground that the post had become surplus and the Petitioner had failed to signify his assent for absorption in the University within the period allowed to him under the memorandum (Annexure ''D'').

These were the only points which had been urged-

Therefore, the result is that the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties left to bear their own costs.