Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
In State of Assam vs Kanak Chandra Dutta (supra), it was already held
that a person holding a "civil post", in the matter of termination would be entitled
to protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and this dictum has been
relied and followed in Superintendent of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma
(supra).
Muhammed Sadique K.P vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 7 June, 2010
However, in the
9
light of constitutional provisions this was not accepted by Courts and as long
back as in 1977, this question was considered by a three Judges Bench of
Supreme Court in P.K. Rajamma Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices reported
in 1977 3 SCC 94. It was held that a post exists apart from the holder of the
post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A
post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is
not holder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the
administrative control of State. State may create or abolish the post and may
regulate conditions of service of persons appointed to the post. Court then
examined the scheme of Rules 1964 and said:- "...Turning now to the rules by
which the respondents were admittedly governed, it appears that they contain
elaborate provisions controlling the appointment, leave termination of services,
nature of penalties, procedure for imposing penalties and other matters relating to
the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents. There is a schedule
annexed to the rules naming the appointing authorities in respect of each
category of employees. Rule 5 states that the employee governed by these rules
shall be entitled to such leave as may be determined by the Government from
time to time and provides that if an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of
the maximum period of leave admissible and granted to him or if an employee
who is granted leave is absent from duty for any period exceeding the limit upto
which he could have been granted leave, he shall be removed from the service
unless the Government decides otherwise in the exceptional circumstances of any
particular time case. The services of employees who had not put in more than
three years' continuous service are liable to be terminated at any time under Rule
6 for unsatisfactory work or for any administrative reason. The rules also indicate
the nature of penalties which may be imposed on an employee and the procedure
for imposing them. A right of appeal is provided against an order imposing any of
the penalties on the employee. Various other conditions of service are also
provided in these rules."