PETITIONER: MADYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS LTD Vs. RESPONDENT: DEVENDRA K.JAIN DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1994 BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 638 JT 1995 (1) 198 1994 SCALE (5)164 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAIZAN UDDIN, J.- Leave granted.
2.The appellant is a government company within the
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act which is
controlled and owned by the State Government and a
subsidiary company of M.P. Laghu Udhyo Nigam Limited which
is carrying on business activities of development of
handicrafts and handloom products. At the relevant time one
Shri K.P Thakur was the Managing Director of the appellant-
company who by an order dated 6-7-1989 Annexure-D appointed
Respondents 1 to 3, namely, Devendra Kumar Jain, Dilip Goel
and Promod Mishra as temporary Junior Managers and by two
subsequent orders both dated 8-6-1989 (Annexure E/1 and 2)
appointed Respondents 4 and 5, namely, Mehboob Hussain and
Liaquat Mohd. Khilzi as temporary Junior Managers in the
appellant Company. Soon after their appointment the
appellant-Company noticed that the aforesaid appointments of
Respondents 1 to 5 were made by the then Managing Director,
Shri K.P. Thakur in contravention of the Government Order
dated 1-4-1989 Annexure B without the approval of the State
Government and therefore, another Managing Director
successor of Shri K.P. Thakur by order dated 31-7-1989
terminated the services of Respondents 1 to 5. The
respondents challenged the aforesaid order of termination in
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition
No. 3973/83 which was allowed by judgment dated 1-12-1993
whereby the order of termination of the respondents was
quashed. It has been directed that the respondents will
continue in service till their services are not validly
terminated. It is this order which has been challenged in
this appeal.
3.The High Court quashed the order of termination of
service of respondents mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the
High Court took the view that the respondents’ services were
terminated without giving them any opportunity of hearing in
consonance with the rules of natural justice and, therefore,
the order of termination of service was contrary to law and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and; secondly,
Government approval was not necessary for the appointment as
contended by the appellant and that in any case no material
was placed to show that the appointment was contrary to the
Government instructions. In our considered opinion the High
Court fell in serious error in taking the aforesaid view
and, therefore, the order of the High Court could not be
sustained in law.
4.Admittedly the appointment of the respondents was made
purely on temporary basis which is evident from the order of
their appointment. The
640
first order dated 6-7-1989 Annexure D by which Respondents 1
to 3 were appointed reads as follows:
“Bhopal, 6-7-1989
ORDER
The following persons are appointed to the post of Junior
Manager in the pay scale of 1290-30-1560-40-2040 from the
date of taking over, till further orders temporarily and are
posted to the Headquarters:
(1) Shri D.K. Jain
(2) Shri Pramod Mishra
(3) Shri Dilip Kumar Goyal
2. Employee has to submit Medical Fitness Certificate from
Civil Surgeonof the District.
3. Dearness Allowance and other facilities according to
the rules of the Corporation shall be payable.
Above appointments are purely temporary and are liable to
termination without notice or assigning any reason.
By order of Managing Director
General Manager
Hastashilp Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bhopal”
6-7-1989
The subsequent two orders both dated 8-6-1989 with regard to
the appointment of Respondents 4 and 5 are identical one of
which is reproduced herein below:
“6-7-1989
ORDER
Shri Mohammad Hussain is appointed to the post
of Junior Manager in the pay scale of 1290-30-
1560-40-2040 from the date of taking over,
temporarily and posted at Headquarters.
Employee has to obtain Medical Fitness
Certificate from Civil Surgeon and submit to
office.
Dearness Allowance and other facilities
according to the rules of the Corporation
shall be payable.
Above appointment is purely temporary and is
liable to termination at any time without
notice or assigning a reason.
General Manager”
5. A plain reading of these two orders will go to show that
the appointments were made purely on temporary basis and
their services were liable to be terminated at any time
without notice or assigning any reason. In the case of
appointment on temporary basis a servant who is so appointed
does not acquire any substantive right to the post, even
though the post itself may be permanent and it is an implied
term of such appointment that it may be terminable at any
time and without notice. A temporary government servant
does not become a permanent government servant unless he
acquires
641
that capacity by force of any rule or he is declared or
appointed as a permanent servant. In the present case there
is no rule under which the respondents may be deemed to have
become permanent by force of such rule nor they were so
declared by any subsequent order of the appellant-Company to
have acquired that status. On the contrary the respondents
all along continued to be temporary and according to the
terms of the order of appointment their services could be
terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any
reasons. In such a case it is not necessary to follow the
formalities contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution.
In these facts and circumstances the High Court was not
right in holding that the respondents were entitled for
being heard before passing the said order of termination of
their services and that the order of termination was bad in
law on that account.
6. As regards the second ground the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant-
Corporation had prepared a project in January 1980 (a copy
of which is filed as Annexure A in this appeal) for the
development of handicrafts through exhibitions and proposed
that five officers of junior manager rank and some
salesgirls/salesmen be appointed in that connection. But
when the Government came to know about the said project it
disapproved the same by order dated 1-4-1989 (Annexure B)
and directed that no appointments shall be made to the said
post without obtaining prior approval of the State
Government. The learned counsel for the appellant,
therefore, contended that the appointment of the respondents
was made against the directions of the State Government and
while quashing the order of the termination the High Court
did not take into consideration the said directions of the
State Government.
7. It may be pointed out here that the appellant-
Corporation is a government company fully financed by the
State Government and that being so the Government would be
very much concerned to see that any project which is not
economically beneficial for the Corporation and which is
likely to result in any loss should not be given effect to.
The Government, therefore, would be justified in issuing
instructions that no appointments of any staff in connection
with the said project will be made without the approval of
the Board of Directors of M.P. Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam
Limited and passed the order to that effect which has been
filed as Annexure B in this appeal. But it appears that the
High Court ignored the said order of the State Government
while observing that no material in support of the
contention that the Government has issued instructions not
to make appointment was produced by the appellant.
8. It is noteworthy that Shri K.P. Thakur, the then
Managing Director himself was retiring on 31-7-1989 and in
hot haste he issued the orders of appointment of the
respondents on 6-7-1989 and 8-6-1989 in spite of the
instructions of the State Government to the contrary. In
these facts and circumstances the impugned order passed by
the High Court quashing the termination of service of the
respondents cannot be sustained.
642
9. In the result the appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 1-12-1993 passed by the
High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3973 of 1989 is set
aside and the said writ petition is dismissed but without
any order as to costs.
644