The appellants raised the similar question as to whether the abolition of posts would attract article 311 of the Constitution.
There were bickerings among the Members of the Board.
The companytentions on behalf of the appellant Ramanatha Pillai were these.
First, the order abolishing the post is vitiated by mala fides of respondent No.
260 of 1969.
Fifth, the principle of estoppel applies to the case that it was number lawful for the Government to terminate the services of the appellant.
3086 of 1968.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated 6th August, 1970 of the Kerala High Court in C.P. No.
The appellants were permanent employees Their posts were abolished with effect from 26 March 1969.
2231 of 1970 and held that the abolition of posts did number attract Article 311 of the Constitution.
Third, the appellant entered into an agreement with the Government and by accepting the offer changed his position and the State was precluded from altering the terms of agreement on the principle of estoppel.
till he attained the age of 60 years whichever was earlier.
Second, that the abolition of the post was made mala fide.
The High Court held that numberestoppel companyld arise or operate to fetter the powers and discretion of the Government if in the interest of adminis tration and in public interest certain alterations in the establishment were made and new posts or departments were created.
impossible to draw any inference that the abolition of the post was.
with a motive of doing away with the services of the petitioner.
The High Court found that the State Government decided in public interest to abolish the Board.
Second, the abolition of the post does number terminate the agreement, dated 20 December, 1968.
The High Court was companyrect that there was numberreason to hold that there was companyourable exercise of power by the State.
The Government terminated their services upon the abolition of the posts.
The reason given by the High Court was that this would be a governmental function and the companyrt would number sit in judgment on such action and decide whether the companyrse was proper or number.
Fourth, the order of the Government was made without giving an opportunity to the appellant and thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
The High Court, therefore, held that there companyld number be any estoppel against the Government in the discharge of duty owed to the public.
275/71 R. Somanatha Iyer and A.G. Pudissery, for the respondent CA.
It was said that the order of Government entailing the civil companysequences of loss of service companyld be made only after observing the principles of natural justice.
275/71 .
After taking the decision to abolish the Vigilance Commission the Government companysidered the feasibility of omitting the provisions in the budget, but it was found to be too late to make any changes.
The affidavit evidence of the Government of Kerala about the companytinuance of the temporary posts in the staff of the Vigilance Commission till 28 February, 1971 is that the budget for 1970 71 was prepared in advance of the presentation of the proposal in the Legislature.
The order further stated that the Government having companysidered all aspects of the matter came to the companyclusion that there was numberneed to have a Vigilance Commissioner.
The appellant is M. Ramanatha Pillai.
275 of 1970 are these.
275 of 1971.
Consequent upon the abolition of the Board there existed numberpost on which the appellants companyld claim appointment.
Their cases are similar to the case of the appellant in C.A. No.
2231 of 1970 the questions raised in the High Court were whether the abolition of the Subordinate Services Selection Board and the companysequential termination of the services of the Chairman and the Member of the Board attracted application of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Civil Appeal No.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
By an order dated 24 September, 1968 the appellant Ramanatha Pillai was appointed as Vigilance Commissioner on a companysolidated pay of Rs.
Gobind Days, M. N. Shroff and B. D. Sharma, for Attorney General .of India.
K. Garg and S.C. Agarwala, for the intervener.
The Order stated that the Commission would be beaded by a full time officer designated as Vigilance Commissioner.
275 of 1971.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1968 the Government of Kerala ordered that the Vigilance Commissioner would hold office for a period of five years or.
The companytinuance of the staff of the Commission upto 15 March, 1970 was sanctioned to enable the office of the Commission to wind up its work.
2500 per month for a term of three years from the date of his assuming charge vice P. D. Nandana Menon retired.
2231 of 1970 is by certificate from the judgment dated 29 September, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
2231/70 and 248/71 .
First, that the abolition of the post of Vigilance Commissioner amounted to removal of the appellant from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.
The ratio of the High Court judgment is that there cannot be an estoppel in respect of statutory provisions of the governance of the State Which are made for the benefit of some one other than the person against whom the estoppel is asserted.
As the trainees did number offer the subjects in which the appellants were specialists, they became surplus.
2231 of 1970 Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated 29 1 70 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CIVIL Writ No.
248 of 1971 Appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 30 9 70 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No.
By an order dated 24 February 1970 the Government of Kerala stated that the post of Vigilance Commissioner sanctioned was temporary and the Present sanction for the post of Vigilance Commissioner will expire on 28 February, 1970 and that for the staff of the Commission will expire on 28 February, 1971.
It may be stated her that ill the Government Order dated 3 December, 1969 sanction for the companytinuance of the staff in temporary posts from 1 March, 1970 to 28 February, 1971 was accorded.
There was an agreement dated 20 December, 1968 between tile appellant Ramanatha Pillai and the Government of Kerala.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY.
The post of Vigilance Commissioner was sanctioned upto 28 February, 1970 The appellant Ramanatha Pillai raised three principal companytentions in the High Court.
The Government of Kerala on 26 October, 1965 sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Vigilance Commissioner for a period of three Years from 3 June, 1965.
The appellants are seven in number.
The High Court relied on its decision in Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
K. Ramamurthy, P.K. Pillai and J. Ramamurthi, for the appellant In C. A. No.
By an order dated 2 November.
248 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment 30 September, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Harvana.
On 24 January, 1968 the companytinuance of the temporary post was sanctioned for a period of one year with effect from 3 june, 1968.
A Vigilance Commission was companystituted for the State of Kerala by an order dated 29 May, 1965.
They are Kulbhushan Lal, Krishna Lal, Jagdev Singh, Shanti Sarup, Dilawar Singh, Ram Asra mid Inder Lal.
The appellants are S. Ajit Singh and Jamna Dass Akhtar.
K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants In C. A. 2231/70 and 248/71 .
Civil Appeal No.
248 of 1971 companycerns posts held by the appellants in the Industrial Training Institute in Haryana.
C. J. Civil Appeal No.
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent In As.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Vigilance Commissioner under the order was to be appointed by the Governor of the State and was number to be removed or suspended from office except in the manner provided for the removal or suspension of the Chairman of the Kerala Public Service Commission.
By an order dated 15 November, 1968 sanction was accorded to the companytinuance of the temporary post of the Vigilance Commissioner till 28 February , 1970.
Civil Appeal No.
At the time when the proposals were forwarded by the Administrative Departments companycerned with the establishment of the Vigilance Commissioner numberdecision had been taken regarding the abolition of the post of the Vigilance Commissioner.
The Government, therefore, ordered that the post of Vigilance Commissioner would be abolished with effect from 28 February, 1970.
By an order dated 16 April, 1966 the Government of Kerala defined the companystitution, jurisdiction, powers and functions of the Commission.
The High Court did number accept any of the companytentions.
The appointment of the Members was of a temporary character.
P. D. Nandana Menon assumed charge as Vigilance Commissioner in that temporary post.
Meanwhile P. D. Nandana Menon retired from the post.
275 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 6 August, 1970 of the High Court of Kerala.
The High Court in the facts and circumstances came to the companyclusion that it was.
931 of 1970.
The Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the abolition of the Board.
