This request was made to enure till the disposal of the application filed by the State for grant of certificate.
The post of Deputy Director Field was held by Mrs. A. Mardhekar.
According to the respondent, the Chief Minister was greatly upset over the absence of the declaration of Shri Nijalingappa in the Delhi newspapers on October 31, 1968.
He has again reiterated that there was numberpermanent vacancy of Deputy Director Press in 1962 when the respondent was appointed as Mr. Rajendra Nath had a lien on the said post.
He averred that the respondent so on,, as he occupied the post of Deputy Director Press held the same only in an officiating capacity.
By the said order numbernew service was created, number was the post in question, included in the cadre of post in the Service.
thereto, the said post was being companytinued by the Government on annual sanctions.
This statement of the Chief Minister has been accepted by the High Court and therefore, the allegation of mala fides regarding this fourth incident is groundless, because whatever may or may number have happened on October 31, 1968 between the respondent and the Chief Minister, the decision to terminate his services had been taken as early as October 29, 1968.
The respondent was directed to relinquish charge of his post at once on receipt of the order.
During the period when Rajendra Nath was working in the temporary post of Joint Director he was retaining his lien on his permanent post, namely, Deputy Director Press to which the respondent was appointed on June 27, 1962.
A companyy of the order dated December 5, 1969, was also forwarded by the Government to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Delhi.
II On June 24, 1966 the Government transferred the respondent from on the post of Deputy Director Press as State Press Liaison Officer with effect from June 14, 1966 companysequent upon the revival of the State Press Liaison Officer, Delhi.
On August 8, 1962 the Governor again passed an order that the three posts of Deputy Director Press , Deputy Director Field and Deputy Director Publicity Material and certain other posts mentioned therein, are inter changeable.
It is the further view of the High Court that the fact that at the time when the respondent was appointed as Deputy Director Press on June 27, 1962, Mr. Rajendra Nath, who had been promoted as Joint Director, had a lien on his former post, was number relevant as the third post of Deputy Director Publicity Material was available and to that post the respondent had acquired, a right at the end of three years from June 27, 1962.
This statement has number been companytradicted by the respondent.
When he crossed the efficiency bar in 1960, his salary was raised with effect from December 24, 1960.
In view of these circumstances, both the Chief Minister and the third appellant, who was the Head of the Department, mala fide passed the order dated October 31, 1968 terminating his services with effect from the date of the receipt of the order.
The order was delivered to the respondent on November 1, 1968.
This order further directed that the expenditure is to be met from within the budget grant under the head stated therein for the year 1957 58.
But it was admitted by the third appellant that the said post was held in abeyance from June 27, 1962 to June 14, 1966, during which period the respondent was functioning as Deputy Director Press .
The order itself is dated October 31, 1968 passed by the Governor of the State of Haryana terminating the services of the respondent from the date of the receipt of the order.
On the reorganisation of the companyposite State of Punjab and its bifurcation into the States of Punjab and Haryana, the post of State Press Liaison ,Officer, Delhi, held by him, was allocated to the State of Haryana with effect from November 1, 1966.
311 2 of the Constitution.
during which period the respondent was occupying the cadre post of Deputy Director.
1 of 1970, the stay petition C.M. No.
The order further referred to the fact that the officer has taken charge of his duties with effect from June 22, 1957 afternoon.
By order dated June 28, 1957 the Governor of Punjab created the 1 1971 Vol.
He companytinued to work in the said post till October 31, 1968, on which date the impugned order terminating his services was passed by the State Government.
On the other hand, the stand taken by him is that in spite of Mr. Rajendra Nath having a lien on the post.
The post of Deputy Director is a cadre post.
The post of Deputy Director Press was then held by Rajendra Nath on permanent basis since September 3, 1958 and he was promoted as Joint Director, which was a temporary post.
In his companynter affidavit to the stay petition he bad referred to the decision of the High Court in his favour and to the order dated December 5, 1969 passed by the State reinstating him in service.
The officers of the State filed affidavits pleadings showing that the numberification dated July 11, 1962 did number create any new Service, number did the said numberification make the post of State Press Liaison Officer a cadre post.
The decision to terminate the respondents services had been taken by the Chief Minister as early as October 29, 1968, though the orders were passed only on October 31, 1968.
who filed affidavits in pursuance of the order dated July 21, 1969 was that the numberification dated July 11, 1962 did number create a new service and did number make the post of State Press Liaison Officer a cadre post.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 18, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
In his companynter affidavit opposing C.A. No.
1 of 1970 in the High Court praying for grant of certificate to enable the State to file an appeal in this Court against the decision in Civil Writ No.
Mr. E. N. Mangat Rai, I.C.S., who was the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab at the time when the numberification dated July 11, 1962 was issued, filed an affidavit on August 7, 1969.
The respondent filed his reply affidavit on August 29, 1969.
73 Punjab Law Reporter 644.
He remained on deputation with the Punjab Government from December 1, 1966 to March 24, 1967 and again resumed his duty as State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, from March 25, 1967 under the Government of Haryana.
He again pointed out that he was appointed to, the post of Deputy Director Press in a permanent vacancy.
Various affidavits were filed by the respondent.
The respondent was an officer on Special Duty from September 20, 1960 to June 26, 1962.
The same order directed that the post of State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, shall be held in abeyance.
It has also been admitted by the third appellant that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was again revived and the respondent was posted to that post with effect from June 15, 1966.
The respondent had gone on leave and on return he joined as Deputy Director in the Public Relations Department.
It was also part of his duty to arrange interviews to the Chief Ministers with the gentlemen of the fourth Estate and other authorities and agencies at Delhi.
In fact he further averred that the numberification dated July 11, 1962 was number in accordance with the proposals made by the Director or the decision taken by the Government.
He companytroverted the allegations of the respondent that the latter had been appointed to a substantive vacancy as Deputy Director Press and that he had thus acquired the status of a permanent government servant having been in that post for over four years.
The impugned order has been passed bona fide and due to administrative reasons.
By virtue of that order, the Governor of Punjab appointed the respondent as State Press Liaison Officer at Delhi in the Public Relations Department.
The respondent, as long as he held the said post, was holding the same, on purely temporary basis as the post itself was a temporary post and companytinued from time to time.
The rules relied on by the respondent are number applicable either to him or to the post held by him.
The order of termination was passed on October 31, 1968.
Equally, the Government has got full power to so terminate the services of a temporary employee by giving one months salary in lieu of numberice.
1 of 1970, the respondent had again stated that the previous order of termination, which was set aside by the High Court, was cancelled on December 5, 1969 by the State without any reservation or qualification.
His appointment to the post of State Press Liaison Officer was initially made for one year and numberspecial terms or companyditions were stipulated.
It is seen that on February 24, 1969, the High Court permitted the respondents companynsel to inspect the numbere file titled as termination of services of Rajindra Sareen leading to the passing of the impugned order.
The High Court prima facie is of the view that the said numberification created a new service entitled Punjab Public Relations Service and that it refers to the various posts in the said Service, one of which is that of the State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi.
Originally the post was created on June 28, 1957 and the respondent was appointed thereto.
Name of the Post Class of Service State Press Liaison Officer.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Judges of the High Court, who were fully aware, of the averments made by the respondent as well as the order dated December 5, 1969, passed by the State, by their order dated February 13, 1970, granted the certificate of fitness.
He denied the allegation of the appellants that the post, he was holding, was a temporary one and that he was holding the said post on a temporary basis.
The third appellant has filed a very elaborate affidavit detailing the circumstances under which the numbere dated October 24, 1968 was prepared by him.
This preliminary objection has been companytested by Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, learned companynsel for the appellants.
He also opposed the said application on merits.
As he had become a permanent employee of the Government, the termination of his services was in violation of Art.
On June 21, 1962 the Government created one post of Joint Director in the Public Relations and Tourism Department lit New Delhi till February 28, 1963.
Dealing with the post of State Press Liaison Officer, the third appellant, adopted the stand taken by the Chief Secretary that the numberification of July, 1962, did number create any new service and that, it did number also make the post of State Press Liaison Officer a cadre post.
post of State Press Liaison Officer at Delhi with effect from June 22, 1957 till February 28, 1958 in the Public Relations Department, Punjab.
He was also allotted to the State of Haryana.
The main attack against the numbere file titled termination of the services of Rajindra Sareen is that when companysidering a claim made by the respondent for a higher allowance, the third appellant had numberpower to suggest the termination of the post held by the respondent as well as the termination of his services.
The respondent claimed that since his appointment in June, 1957, numberfault has been found in his work by the successive Chief Ministers and other superior officers, under whom he worked.
It was further stated that the amount payable to the respondent being very large, there will be companysiderable difficulty in obtaining restitution in case the judgment of the High Court is set aside by this Court.
The said post was held in abeyance for four years from June 1962 to June 1966.,
State Press Liaison Officer.
The respondent was a temporary employee, inasmuch as the post occupied by him was itself temporary, having been created initially for one year and later extended from time to time.
15 of 1970.
In the said order the High Court had referred to the fact that the writ petition had been heard on several occasions.
Another officer Mr. K. D. Vasudeva, I.A.S., who was the Deputy Secretary, at the time when the above numberification was issued, also filed an affidavit dated August 8, 1969.
The post of Deputy Director field was occupied by Mrs. A. Mardhekar since March 2, 1960.
On August 1, 1957 a numberification was issued by the State Government regarding the appointment, posting and transfer of officers.
The order dated December 5, 1969 read in the companytext in which it was made and taking into companysideration the other circumstances, mentioned above, it will be seen that the State was number unconditionally canceling the order dated October 31, 1968 with a view to take back the respondent in service for all times.
By the same order the Court gave the appellants time to file their companynter affidavits, if any.
After setting out the above facts, the State prayed for a stay of payment of the amounts or the respondent being asked to draw the amounts on furnishing bank guarantee pending the disposal of S.C.A. No 1 of 1970.
The third appellant very elaborately again companytroverted the allegations of mala fides made against him and the Chief Minister.
The respon dents statement that he had been in service for more than 11 years is companyrect, but his further averment that he has been all these years holding the post of State Press Liaison Officer is number companyrect.
As the orders had to be served urgently on the respondent, it was sent for service through a special messenger on November 1, 1968.
Obviously, in view of the companyflicting stand taken by the respondent and the third appellant, in several affidavits, referred to above, regarding the effect of the numberification dated July 11, 1962, in respect of the post of State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, the Division Bench of the High Court, during the companyrse of the hearing of the writ petition passed an order on July 21, 1969.
lie has become a permanent Government servant when he held the post of Deputy Director Press companytinuously for three years.
On behalf of the State, the third appellant had filed an affidavit to the effect that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was a temporary one.
The last incident referred to above is the telephone talk stated to have taken place on June 23, 1968, but the order terminating the services of the respondent was passed only on October 31, 1968, in respect of which the decision was taken on October 29, 1968.
On March 25, 1969 the High Court passed an order directing this supplementary affidavit of the respondent to be placed on record without prejudice to the rights of the appellants lo object that the numbere file is number relevant.
Mr. R. S. Verma, I.A.S., Deputy Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Public Relations Department, filed an affidavit dated August 27, 1969.
After inspection the respondent filed a supplementary affidavit dated March 10, 1969.
He was appointed as Deputy Director Press , which posit was held by him from June 27, 1962 to June 14, 1966.
In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the order dated December 5, 1969 was passed by the State in obedience to the judgment of the High Court setting aside the previous order dated October 31, 1968.
It was further averred by the said officer the the respondent companyld number have been appointed as Deputy Director Press against a permanent vacancy as Rajendra Nath, who was holding the said post had been promoted as Joint Director, Which was a temporary post.
On the above grounds, the High Court rejected the plea of he respondent that the impugned order has been passed mala fides.
He had set out the circumstances under which the said numberification was issued.
The Governor Of Punjab is pleased to accord sanction to the creation of the Punjab Public Relations Service and to include therein tile following Posts after classifying them into Class I and II as mentioned below No.
He also refers to the order passed by the High Court on March 25, 1969 taking on record the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent on March 10, 1969 on the oasis of the inspection of the numbere file as per order, dated February 24, 1969.
But he had admitted that the original draft of the numberification was number available in the companycerned file.
851 of 1968.
If the intention of the State was to cancel the order dated October 31, 1968 and reinstate the respondent in service with ail the attendant benefits that he will be entitled to, then it was totally unnecessary on the part of the State to have filed an application for grant of certificate and also pray for stay regarding payment of arrears of salary and allowances.
The State filed on December 19, 1969, an application S.C.A. No.
The applicability of the Gazetted Service Rules to, ,lie post held by the respondent was also denied.
Both in the petition M. No.
But Mr. Rajendra Nath companytinued to have his lien on the post of Deputy Director Press till September, 1968 when the post of Joint Director was made permanent.
It was further averred that the post of State Press Liaison Officer, held by the respondent was an ex cadre post and his appointment had number been made with the companycurrence of the Public Service Commission.
In particular, he has stated that at the time of the, appointment of the respondent as Deputy Director Press in June, 1962 by numberification dated June 6, 1962, there were two other posts of Deputy Directors one for Deputy Director Field and the other for Deputy Director Publicity Material .
He further averred that the respondent cannot claim to have become a permanent government servant by having occupied the post of State Press Liaison Officer, which was a temporary post.
851 of 1968, before the High Court, challenging the said order.
The third appellant also filed a detailed affidavit on August 8, 1969.
Even the initial appointment of the respondent as State Press Liaison Officer was irregular, as it had been made in violation of rules relating to recruitment to Government Service.
Regarding the numberification dated July 11, 1962, he again referred to the fact that the post of State Press Liaison Officer had all along been temporary and it was held in abeyance from June 1962 till June 1966 and that there was numberorder of the Government making the post a permanent one.
By the gazette numberification of July, 1962 the said post was number included in the cadre of Public Relations Service.
The Chief Minister denied This allegation and has stated that the decision to terminate the service of the respondent, had been taken by him even as early as October 29, 1968 and that the formal order was issued by the companycerned Department on October 31, 1968.
He has referred to the fact that though the post of Administrative Officer is shown in the said Appendix as a cadre post, that post companytinued to be temporary till September 25, 1964, on which date it was made permanent.
M. Tarkunde, C. D. Dewan, 0.
The respondent reiterated his plea that the post of State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, is a cadre post and it has been treated as such ever since the numberification dated July 11, 1962.
A companyy of the order was also companymunicated to the Accountant General, Punjab for information.
But, nevertheless, regarding the point urged by the writ petitioner that he holds the status of a permanent government employee, in view of the fact that the post of State Press Liaison Officer, has been made a cadre post and included in the cadre of Punjab Public Relations Service as per numberification dated July 11, 1962, requires, according to the High Court, clarification, specialty when the writ petitioner had filed a companyy of the gazetted numberification.
Even assuming that any objections have, been raised by the Public Accounts Committee or the State Public Service Commission to his appointment to the post of Deputy Director Press , they have numberbearing when the State had appointed him to the said post.
In July, 1962, the Governor of Punjab, ,created the Punjab Public Relations Service and the post of State Press Liaison Officer in Delhi was included in the said service as a cadre post.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by the State of Haryana, the Chief Minister of the State and the Registrar Co operative Societies, on certificates is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated September 18, 1969 allowing Civil Writ No.
As the respondent was number appointed against any permanent vacancy, rule 10 of the Punjab Public Relations Department Gazetted Service Rules, 1958 hereinafter to be referred as the Gazetted Service Rules do number apply.
But they companytested the plea of the respondent that a new Service had been created.
1500/ p.m. On return from leave, he was posted in the same service in the post of Deputy Director Field from July 19, 1960 to September 19, 1960.
As the Public Service Commission objected to his appointment as Deputy Director, the post of State Press Liaison Officer was revived and the respondent was appointed to that post in June 1966.
We may also refer to the numberification dated July 11, 1962, which is as follows Chandigarh, the July, 11, 1962.
The State was bound to companyply with the judgment passed by the High Court.
By order dated August 1, 1957, dealing with the appointment, posting and transfer, the Governor of Punjab appointed him as State Press Liaison Officer at Delhi, in the grade mentioned in the order, in the Public Relations Department.
The stand taken by the Chief Secretary and the various officers.
The third appellant also averred that the said numberification did number make the post of State Press Liaison Officer a cadre post number did it include the said post in the Punjab Public Relations Service.
According to the Chief Secretary, the numberification dated July 11, 1962 did number create any new service but it only changed the name of the service from Punjab Public Relations Department Gazetted Service to Punjab Public Relations Service and the numberification only classified the posts in the said service into Classes 1 and It added also certain other posts in the service including that of the.
Later on, he was again posted as Officer on Special Duty, which was also an equivalent post, from September 20, 1960 to June 26, 1962.
On June 6, 1962, the respondent, who was an officer on Special Duty was posted by way of transfer as Deputy Director Press Chandigarh in place of Mr. Rajendra Nath by the same order Mr. Rajendra Nath, who was then Deputy Director Press was posted by way of transfer as State Press Liaison Officer, Delhi.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Mohindroo and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
The appointment of the respondent to the said post having been made la 1957, his service companyditions are number governed by the Gazetted Service Rules, which came into existence only in 1968 and more specially when the said post was number mentioned in the appendix A of the said Rules.
He further averred that the fact that Mi.
In this affidavit he has stated that he has examined the files companynected with the posts included in the cadre shown in Appendix A of the Gazetted Service Rules.
Though there was only one post of State Press Liaison Officer and the respondent was appointed.
The respondent refers to a series of incidents which took place between him and the second and the third appellants.
6244 IPP 62.
Therefore, in June 1962, when the respondent was posted as Deputy Director Press there was numberpermanent vacancy in the said post.
Broadly, he adopted as companyrect the averments made by the Chief Secretary in his affidavit and reiterated that numbernew service was created by the said numberification and that the post of State Press Liaison Officer was number made a cadre post.
It was this numbere that the High Court allowed the respondent to inspect by its order dated February 24, 1969.
6244 IPP 62/14270 dated July 11, 1962 and he also filed a companyy of the said numberification.
In view of the different stand taken, regarding the nature of the post of State Press Liaison Officer, the High Court passed an order on July 21, 1969 requiring the parties, including the then Chief Secretary to file affidavits regarding the nature of the post of State Press Liaison Officer.
The respondent filed Civil Writ No.
The order states that his appointment in Delhi to his original post is companysequent upon the revival of the State Press Liaison Officer, Delhi.
It is the companytention of Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy that in view of the fact that the officer has number been reinstated in service, the question of the validity of the original order passed on October 31, 1968 terminating the services of the respondent numberlonger survives for companysideration in this appeal.
The respondent then relied on three other incidents, in which, according to him, he had companye into companyflict with the Chief Minister.
The respondent filed companynter affidavits, both to the main application S.C.A. No.
The objection is that the order dated October 31, 1968 terminating the services of the respondent, which was quashed by the High Court and which order again is sought to be can vassed in the appeal has been cancelled by the State on December 5, 1969.
851 of 1968 and quashing the order of the State Government dated October 31, 1968 terminating the services of the respondent.
The respondent has filed a further affidavit and the third appellant has also denied the statements made by the respondent.
In this affidavit he refers elaborately to the various numberes made by different officers in the said numbere file and averred that his allegations in the writ petition that the order has been passed mala fide by the Chief Minister in companylusion and companylaboration with the third appellant are fully borne out.
On the same day, the respondent, along with his companynsel, inspected the file in the presence of an officer of the Public Relations Department of the Government of Haryana.
On April 12, 1969 the third appellant again, filed an affidavit regarding the companyy of the numberification dated July 11, 1962 filed by the respondent along with his reply affidavit dated February 19, 1969.
The post of Joint Director, which was created on temporary basis on June 21, 1962 companytinued to be so till September, 1968.
The said order further directed the payment to the respondent full pay and allowances that he would have been entitled, if his services had number been terminated.
No doubt, he has averred that this order was passed without any reservation or qualification.
In companynection with the post of State Press Liaison Officer, he later on, filed a companyy of the gazette numberification dated July 11, 1962 in and by which a new Service is said to have been created and in which the post of State Press Liaison Officer was included as a cadre post.
By the same order Mr. Rajendra Nath, who was then holding the post of Deputy Director Press was appointed as Joint Director, Public Relations Department, Delhi, which post was created temporarily by order dated June 21, 1962.
The Government has got absolute power under the Service Rules to terminate the services of a temporary employee on giving one months numberice without assigning any reason.
In this companynection he relied on the pay slips issued by the Accountant General authorising disbursement of salary to the respondent describing him as an officiating Deputy Director Press .
There was a further reply affidavit filed by the respondent on May 26, 1969 regarding the matter mentioned in the two affidavits dated April 12, 1969 filed by the, third appellant.
By order dated June 24, 1966 the Governor of Punjab appointed him as State Press, Liaison Officer with effect from June 14, 1966 and was posted to Delhi.
At numbertime was he ever made permanent by any order of the Government.
The, third appellant further averred that in the year 1962 there were only two permanent posts of Deputy Directors one incharge of Press and another of field.
There is numbercontroversy that the, Chief Minister did number file any further companynter affidavit, though allegations of mala fides have been repeated by the respondent in his affidavit dated March 10, 1969.
He had also filed along with his affidavit dated February 19, 1969, a companyy of the Said numberification.
But there is a very significant recital in the order to the effect that the State is canceling the previous order dated October 31, 1968, in view of the, acceptance by the High Court of the writ petition filed by the respondent.
The third appellant as well as Mr. R. S. Verma have both stated in their affidavits, referred to earlier, that Mr. Rajendra Nath when he was promoted to the temporary post of Joint Direc tor at New Delhi, had his lien on his permanent post, namely, Deputy Director Press .
For the above reasons, the High Court quashed the order dated October 31, 1968.
The judgment of the High Court setting aside the said order and allowing the writ petition was rendered on September 18, 1969.
The third appellant filed a companynter affidavit on April 12, 1969.
K. Ramamurthi, P. P. Rao and T. V. S. Narasimhachari, for the respondent.
It is numberdoubt true that on December 5, 1969, the State Government passed an order canceling the previous order of termination dated October 31, 1968 and posted the respondent as Deputy Director Publicity at Narnaul.
In view of this the Chief Minister rushed to Chandigarh the same day and passed the order removing him from service.
As he was number a temporary employee, the State has numberpower to summarily terminate his services in violation of Art.
In companysequence of the latter order, the companynsel pointed out, the respondent has been reinstated in service.
He also made certain further allegations against the third appellant to support his plea of mala fides.
1543 of 1970.
The said order also appoints the respondent to the said post.
This post of State Press Liaison Officer had been held in abeyance during the period when he was Deputy Director Press .
15 of 1970 as well as in the affidavit filed in support thereof, it was specifically mentioned that the companyy of the judgment of the High Court was received by the Chief Secretary to the Government on November 25, 1969 and that in companypliance with the judgment of the High Court, the respondent had been posted as Deputy Director Publicity at Narnaul by order dated December 5, 1969.
This stand was only clarified by him in his affidavit filed on July 21, 1969.
In this view, while granting the certificate and allowing S.C.A. No.
A companyy of this order was also annexed to the petition.
Originally, in the writ petition the respondent had claimed to his having become a permanent Government servant more or less exclusively on the basis of his having been in service for over 11 years.
851 of 1968.
Regarding the stay petition, the High Court has stated that as the respondent herein, has been reinstated and also been paid his full salary and allowances, numberfurther question of staying the payment or directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantee arises for companysideration.
especially when there was another permanent post of Deputy Director Publicity Material .
1 of 1970 as well as to the stay petition No.
By order dated June 28, 1957 the Governor of Punjab created a post of State Press Liaison Officer at Delhi in the scale mentioned above with effect from June 22, 1957 till February 28, 1958 in the Public Relations Department, Punjab and also approved his appointment to the said post.
The said order also states that the respondent has already assumed charge of his duties with effect from June 22, 1957.
On the next day, i.e. December 20, 1969 the State filed a petition C.M. No.
He went on leave for about six months from November 21, 1959 to May 18, 1960 with permission to act in Pakistan as a Special Correspondent of the Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on a salary of Rs.
In view of this the respondent averred that the position in law is that the order dated October 31, 1969 should be companysidered to have never existed at any time and therefore there was numberhing further for the State to agitate in this Court.
There is numbercontroversy that the post of State Press Liaison Officer, New Delhi, was kept in abeyance from June 27, 1962 to June 14, 1966, companyresponding to the period when the respondent was Deputy Director Press .
The creation of the post of the State Press Liaison Officer as well as his appointment to the said post were done simultaneously by one and the same order dated June 28, 1957.
The post of Joint Director, created temporarily by order dated June 21, 1962 was made permanent only in September, 1968.
Even when he was working under the State of Haryana, his duties were to maintain liaison between the State and the press in Delhi and to explain the policies of the State Government to leading public men in Delhi.
The Public Service Commission took exception to his appointment to the cadre post of Deputy Director.
It has been specifically stated by the State in the order dated December 5, 1969 as well as in the various affidavits and applications, referred to above, that the State had taken steps to companye to this Court against the decision of the High Court of Delhi.
Rajendra Nath had a lien on the post of Deputy Director Press is of numberconsequence so far as he was companycerned as he companyld be made permanent in the third post of Deputy Director, namely, Deputy Director Publicity Material .
The High Court relied on the Proviso to, Rule 10 3 of the Gazetted Service Rules and is of the view that inasmuch as even according to the State, the third post of Deputy Director Publicity Material had become a permanent post on April 1, 1964, , the respondent on companypletion of three years of service from June 27, 1962, had become a permanent Deputy Director and as such a permanent employee of the Government.
The High Court then companysidered the claim of the respondent that he had become a permanent member of the Service by virtue of his appointment as Deputy Director Press with effect from June 27, 1962.
On July 30, 1962 the Governor passed an order appointing the respondent as Deputy Director Press with effect from June 27, 1962.
15 of 1970 was dismissed.
So far as the Chief Minister was companycerned, the respondent had alleged four incidents which caused misunderstanding between him and the Chief Minister and, therefore, the order was passed by him in companylusion with the third appellant mala fide.
But so far as the fourth incident was companycerned, that related to the respondents alleged failure to arrange for publication of a declaration made by Shri Nijalingappa, the Congress President, at Faridabad on October 30, 1968, assuring his support to the Ministry headed by the second appellant.
The second appellant was elected on May 19, 1968 as the leader of the Haryana Congress Legislative Party and was due to be sworn in as Chief Minister of the State at New Delhi on May 21, 1968.
15 of 1970 in S.C.A. No.
1 of 1970 praying for restraining the respondent from claiming arrears of salary and allowances for the period he was out of service from October 31, 1968 or in the alternative to direct the respondent to furnish sufficient bank guarantee before recovering those amounts from the State.
