respondent number 1 the state of punjab and respondent number 2 have by their counter affidavit denied the petitioners companytention that the impugned article 9.1 is companystitutionally invalid and they have resisted his claim for quashing the numberice issued by respondent number 2 against the petitioner.
p. bhandari and r. gopalakrishnan for the petitioner.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 200 of 1963.
the petitioner was appointed as assistant superintendent of police in the erstwhile patiala state by his highness maharaja adhiraj of patiala on the 4th of february 1942.
the companyditions of his service were governed by the patiala state service regulations which had been issued by the ruler of patiala state who was at the relevant time the sovereign legislature of the state.
the petitioners contention is that the said article companytravenes the constitutional right guaranteed to the persons employed in civil capacities either under the union or the state by art.
and r. n. achthey for the respondents.
april 1 1964.
petition under art.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar c. j. this petition which has been filed by the petitioner s. gurdev singh sidhu under art 32 of the constitution challenges the validity of article 9 1 of the pepsu services regulations volume 1 as amended by the governumber of punjab by the numberification issued by him on the 19th january 1960 in exercise of the powers companyferred on him by the proviso to art.
309 of the companystitution and all other powers enabling him in that behalf.
on the formation of patiala and east punjab states union on the 20th august 1948 the petitioner was integrated in pepsu police service.
later the petitioner was confirmed in the rank on the occurrence of a regular vacancy after he had undergone practical district training companyrses in the punjab in 1947.
