AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nainar Sundaram, J.—The Petitioner in this writ petition entered Government service in the year 1956 as lower division clerk in the pay and
Accounts Officer, Madras. His educational qualification is only a pass in the S.S.L.C. Examinations. On 9th November, 1976, by G.O. Ms. No.
3818, Public (Political) Department, the Petitioner, while he was working as the Sub-Treasury Officer of the Treasury and Accounts Service was
appointed temporarily as Additional Reception Officer in the Additional State Great House Maligai with effect from 17th November, 1976. That
post was a temporary post. On 31st January, 1978, he was selected for the post of Reception Officer in Public (Information and Public Relations)
Department with effect from 1st February, 1978 F.N. On 21st May, 1979 by G.O. Ms. No. 953, Public (Political-B) Department Rule 3(a)(i) of
the Special Rules was relaxed and the Petitioner was appointed regularly as Additional Reception Officer with effect from 17th November, 1976.
On 8th September, 1980, G.O. Ms. No. 2047 public (Information and Public Relations) Department on regular basis with effect from 8th
September, 1980 and there was a further relaxation of the rules in question. It was stated there that orders regarding his seniority wiliest separately.
As this judicature it most be pointed out that the post of Reception Officer, Public Information and Public Reception Officer Public (Information
and Public Relations) Department was (sic) as Information and Public Reception Officer on 8th December, 1980. On 5th November, 1982, by
G.O. Ms. No. 880, Information, Tourism (Tamil) Culture Administration Department to the order impugned in the writ petition had come to be
passed by virtue of which the Petitioner is sought to be rendered with (sic) effect to his parent department, namely, Pay and Accounts Officer
Madras. This was obliged the Petitioners (sic) Court seeking for the issue of a wait of certiorari quashes the said (sic)
Mr. S. Ramalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that after the Petitioner has been regularly appointed as
Additional Reception Officer 21st May, 1979 and as Reception Officer on 8th September, 1980 the Public (Information and Public Relations)
Department, there is no question of reason to the parents Department and the with ground order wholly inconsistent. According the learned
Counsel was a come of a substantive appointment to a permanent post and termination otherwise than i.e. the usual course of service exigencies
like superannuation etc., will attract the mischief of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel places reliance on a pronouncement of
a Bench of this Court, consisting of Ramanujam and Padmanabhan, JJ., in K. Ramachandra Prabhu v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax.
Writ Petition No. 3606 of 1977. Order dated 23rd October 1979 in support of his submission.
It is true that a Government servant holding a temporary post and having a lieu on a substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in
ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of service. But after there had been a regular and substantive appointment to at permanent
post in the other Department there is no question of reversion to the original Department in the servant become entitled to what is known as a lien
on the permanent post to which he was substantially appointed whatever short falls the Petitioner had with reference to the satisfaction of the rules
in question, at the relevant point of time, had been erased by relaxation of the concerned rules. It is admitted before me that the post of Reception
Officer is a permanent post in the concerned Department and the appointment made of the Petitioner to that post is a regular and a substantive
one. Even otherwise, the concerned Government Order does not leave any room for ambiguity in the mind of this Court on this aspect.
The question is as to whether a right to continue in the services to which he got engrafted, leaving the original service has accrued to him. A
substantive appointment to a permanent post confuse a substantive right to that post and the Government servant becomes entitled to what is
known as a lien on that post. If the twin elements or permanency of post and substantive ness of the appointment could exist, this lien will be
created. The facts disclosed before me make out the existence of the twin elements. If the post is temporary, it would be a different matter even
thought the appointment is either Substantive or on officiating basis. Such is not the case made out before me by the Respondents. It is true that
though the words, regular or regularisation may not connote permanence yet, in the absence of words indicating that the appointment was only
officiating or purely temporary which would militate against a substantive appointment, the use of the words appointed on regular basis would
indicate, substantive appointment. The language used in G.O. Ms. No. 2047, Public (Information and Public Relations-Administration Department,
dated 8th September, 1980 is to this effect. The Bench, in the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the facts of the case
dealt with by it, opened that after the order of regularisation, the servant would be deemed to have been appointed to the concerned position a
regular basis and there was no question of reversion to the parent Department. On the facts of the present case, I find that it is a case of a
substantive appointment to a permanent post and that has conferred a substantive right on the Petitioner to the said post and in the contingency
there could not be an order of reversion to the previous Department and the Petitioner must be deemed to have lost his lien over the previous
service. In view of this Court sustaining this point urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, he is not urging any other point, though be would
like to urge them.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. There will be order as to costs.