{"id":259835,"date":"1973-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973"},"modified":"2017-07-22T16:25:51","modified_gmt":"2017-07-22T10:55:51","slug":"m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973","title":{"rendered":"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2641, 1974 SCR (1) 515<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien, Beg, M. Hameedullah, Dwivedi, S.N., Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM. RAMANATHA PILLAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.(With connected\t appeals)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/08\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2641\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 515\n 1973 SCC  (2) 650\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1976 SC1199\t (7)\n RF\t    1976 SC2233\t (9)\n RF\t    1976 SC2437\t (20)\n RF\t    1979 SC 621\t (27)\n R\t    1980 SC1255\t (18)\n F\t    1980 SC1285\t (12,27)\n R\t    1982 SC1107\t (30,33)\n RF\t    1989 SC 662\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of India, 1950, Arts.510 and 311-Abolition  of\npost-Effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOn the questions, (i) whether the Government could abolish a\npost  ill  'the service, and (ii) whats the effect  of\tsuch\nabolition  on  the rights of the holder of the post  at\t the\ntime of abolition.\nHELD : (1) Every sovereign government has a right to abolish\na post ill government service in the interest and  necessity\nof internal Administration.  The creation and abolition of a\npost  is dictated by policy, exigencies\t and  administrative\nnecessity  in the interest of general public, and the  power\nis not related to the doctrine of pleasure. [520D-E]\n(2)  The protection afforded by Art. 311<\/a> of the Constitution\nis  limited to the imposition of the three major  penalties,\nnamely,\t dismissal,  removal and reduction in  rank.   These\nwords  are  technical words.  Every termination\t of  service\ncannot amount to dismissal or removal.\tIt is only in  cases\nwhere  there  is  a stigma or a loss  of  benefit  that\t the\nremoval\t or  dismissal would come under\t the  Article.\t The\nexpression \"rank\" in the Article has reference to a person's\nclassification\tand not to his particular place in the\tsame\ncadre  in the hierarchy of the service to which he  belongs.\nA  reduction  in rank would be a punishment  if\t it  carried\npenal consequences with it. [521G-522B]\nParshotam Lai Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R.\t828;\nSatish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India<\/a> [1953] S.C.R. 655\nand  Shyam  Lal\t v. State of U.P. and the  Union  of  India<\/a>,\n[1955] 1 S.C.R. 26, referred to.\n(3)  Where  a  person  has a substantive  appointment  to  a\npermanent post he has a right to hold the post until,  under\nthe  rules,  he\t attains the age  of  superannuation  or  is\ncompulsorily  retired  after having put\t in  the  prescribed\nnumber\tof years' service or the post is abolished; and\t his\nservice cannot be terminated except by way of punishment for\nmisconduct,  negligence,  inefficiency\tor  any\t other\tdis-\nqualification found against him on enquiry after due  notice\nto  him.  An appointment to a temporary post for  a  certain\nspecified period gives the servant a right to hold the\tpost\nfor  the entire period of his tenure, and his tenure  cannot\nbe put an end to during that period unless he is, by way  of\npunishment, dismissed or removed from the service. [522E-G]\nParshotam  Lai Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R.\t 828\nand Mori Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F.  Railways,\nMaligaon, Pandu, etc. [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683, referred to.\n(4)  But  a  post  may\tbe abolished  in  good\tfaith.\t The\nabolition   of\tthe  post  may\thave  the   consequence\t  of\ntermination  of\t service  of  a\t government  servant.\tSuch\ntermination  however is not dismissal or removal within\t the\nmeaning of Art. 311<\/a> of the Constitution.  The opportunity of\nshowing\t cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal  or\nremoval\t does not therefore arise in the case of the  aboli-\ntion  of  a post.  The abolition is not a  personal  penalty\nagainst\t the government servant.  It is an executive  policy\ndecision.    Whether  after  abolition\tof  the\t  post\t the\ngovernment servant, who was holding the post would or  could\nbe  offered any employment under the State. would  therefore\nbe a matter of policy decision of the.\tGovernment, because.\nthe  abolition\tof  a post does not  confer  on\t the  person\nholding the abolished post any right to hold the post.\t The\norder  abolishing  the post may however lose  its  effective\ncharacter   if\t it  is\t established  to  have\t been\tmade\narbitrarily,  mala  fide or as a mask of some  penal  action\nwithin the meaning of Article 311(2).<\/a> [522H; 526D-F]\n516\n(5)  The  observations\tin Moti Ram Dek 'a  case  ([1964]  5\nS.C.R.\t683),  that  a\tperson\twho  substantively  holds  a\npermanent  post has a right to continue in service,  subject\nto the rules of superannuation and compulsory retirement and\nthat  'if for any other reason that right is invaded and  he\nis  asked  to  leave his service,  the\ttermination  of\t his\nservice\t must  inevitably mean the defeat of  his  right  to\ncontinue  in service and as such it, is in the nature  of  a\npenalty\t and amounts to removal' are not authority for\tthe,\nproposition  that abolition of a post in good faith  amounts\nto removal.  The earlier observation in the judgment that  a\npermanent servant would normally acquire a right to hold the\npost   until  under  the  rules\t he  attained  the  age\t  of\nsuperannuation\tor was compulsorily retired or the post\t was\nabolished  shows  that\tthe exception of  termination  as  a\nresult\tof the abolition of a post was not being  considered\nwhen the observation was made. [523A-D]\nChampaklal  Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of.  India<\/a> [1964]  5\nS.C.R. 190, followed.\n(6)  The  Moti Ram Deka case has not abolished the  doctrine\nof  pleasure as embodied in Article 310.<\/a>  That\tarticle\t has\nbeen made subject to Art. 311<\/a> where termination is by way of\npunishment,  and  in cases where a fixed  term\tcontract  is\nmade.\tArticle\t 310(2)<\/a>\t authorises 'a\tprovision  in  such-\ncontract  for the payment of compensation to the  government\nservant\t if  before  expiry  of\t that  period  the  post  is\nabolished  or he is required to vacate the post for  reasons\nnot  connected with any misconduct.  The  article  furnishes\nintrinsic  evidence that the right to abolish the post is  a\ncategory  of the power exercisable by the Slate.  The  power\nto  abolish the post is however inherent in every  sovereign\nGovernment  and is necessary for the proper functioning\t and\ninternal  administration of the State and is  unaffected  by\nthese  limitations on the doctrine of pleasure\tembodied  in\nArt. 310.<\/a> [525G-526D]\n(7)  No estoppel could arise against the State in regard  to\nabolition  of a post.  The courts exclude the  operation  of\nthe  doctrine  of  estoppel,  when  it\tis  found  that\t the\nauthority  against whom estoppel is pleaded has owed a\tduty\nto the public. [526H]\n(8)  When   the\t  exigencies  of   administration   required\nalterations  in\t the  establishment and creation  of  a\t new\ndepartment,  it\t is a governmental function'  and  a  policy\ndecision, and no question of mala fides arises. [527C-D]\n(9)  The  right\t to  hold  a post comes to  an\tend  on\t the\nabolition of the post which a government servant holds,\t and\ntherefore,  he\tcannot\tcomplain of  a\tviolation  of  Arts.\n19(1)(f)  and  31  of  the Constitution\t when  the  post  is\nabolished. [527D-E]\n(10) Article  14<\/a> also is not attracted when  the  government\nservant cannot complain of any discrimination on the  ground\nthat other government servants, similarly situated had\tbeen\nallowed to remain in service. [527E.  F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971.
\nAppeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated\t 6th
\nAugust,\t 1970  of the Kerala High Court in C.P. No.  931  of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1970
\nAppeal\tby  certificate from the judgment  and\torder  dated
\n29-1-70\t of  the  High\tCourt  of  Punjab  and\tHaryana\t  at
\nChandigarh in CIVIL Writ No. 3086 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1971
\nAppeal\tby  certificate from the Judgment  and\tOrder  dated
\n30-9-70\t of  the  High\tCourt  of  Punjab  and\tHaryana\t  at
\nChandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No. 260 of 1969.
\nM.   K.\t Ramamurthy, P.K. Pillai and J. Ramamurthi, for\t the
\nappellant (In C. A. No. 275\/71)
\n517<\/span>
\nA. R. Somanatha Iyer and A.G. Pudissery, for the respondent
\nCA.  No. 275\/71).\n<\/p>\n
Gobind\tDays, M. N. Shroff and B. D.  Sharma,  for  Attorney
\nGeneral .of India.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.  Garg and S.C. Agarwala, for the\t  intervener.
\nR.  K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellants (In C. A.
\n2231\/70 and 248\/71).\n<\/p>\n
Harbans\t Singh and   R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent\t (In
\nC. As.\t  No. 2231\/70 and 248\/71).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY.  C. J. Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971 is  by\t certificate
\nfrom the judgment dated 6 August, 1970 of the High Court  of
\nKerala.\t  The appellant is M. Ramanatha Pillai.
\nCivil  Appeal  No. 2231 of 1970 is by certificate  from\t the
\njudgment  dated\t 29  September, 1970 of the  High  Court  of
\nPunjab\tand  Haryana. The appellants are S. Ajit  Singh\t and
\nJamna Dass Akhtar.\n<\/p>\n
Civil  Appeal  No. 248 of 1971 is by  certificate  from\t the
\njudgment 30 September, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab\t and
\nHarvana.  The  appellants  are\tseven in  number.  They\t are
\nKulbhushan Lal,\t    Krishna Lal, Jagdev Singh, Shanti Sarup,
\nDilawar Singh, Ram Asra\t mid Inder Lal.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts  in\tCivil Appeal No. 275 of 1970  are  these.  A
\nVigilance Commission was constituted for the State of Kerala
\nby an\t     order  dated  29 May, 1965. The  Government  of
\nKerala on 26 October, 1965    sanctioned  the creation of  a
\ntemporary post of Vigilance Commissioner     for a period of
\nthree  Years from 3 June, 1965. P. D. Nandana Menon  assumed
\ncharge as Vigilance Commissioner in that temporary post.
\nBy  an order dated 16 April, 1966 the Government  of  Kerala
\ndefined the constitution, jurisdiction, powers and functions
\nof  the\t Commission. The Order stated  that  the  Commission
\nwould  be  beaded  by  a full  time  officer  designated  as
\nVigilance Commissioner. The Vigilance Commissioner under the
\norder  was to be appointed by the Governor of the State\t and
\nwas not to be removed or suspended from office except in the
\nmanner\tprovided  for  the  removal  or\t suspension  of\t the
\nChairman  of  the Kerala Public Service\t Commission.  On  24
\nJanuary,  1968\tthe continuance of the\ttemporary  post\t was
\nsanctioned for a period of one\t   year\t with effect from  3
\njune, 1968. Meanwhile P. D. Nandana Menon    retired\tfrom
\nthe post.\n<\/p>\n
By an order dated 24 September, 1968 the appellant Ramanatha
\nPillai\t was  appointed\t as  Vigilance\tCommissioner  on   a
\nconsolidated  pay of Rs. 2500 per month for a term of  three
\nyears  from  the  date of his assuming\tcharge\tvice  P.  D.
\nNandana\t Menon retired. By an order dated 2  November.\t1968
\nthe   Government  of  Kerala  ordered  that  the   Vigilance
\nCommissioner  would hold office for a period of\t five  years
\nor.  till  he  attained the age of 60  years  whichever\t was
\nearlier.  By an order dated 15 November, 1968  sanction\t was
\naccorded  to  the continuance of the temporary post  of\t the
\nVigilance Commissioner till 28 February\t , 1970.\n<\/p>\n
518<\/span><\/p>\n
There was an agreement dated 20 December, 1968 between\ttile
\nappellant  Ramanatha  Pillai and the Government\t of  Kerala.
\nThe  agreement provided that the term of appointment was  to
\nbe  for a period of five years from 3 October, 1968 or\ttill
\nthe  appellant\tattained the age of 60\tyears  whichever  is
\nearlier.  Ile agreement further stated that the appellant is
\nnot  to\t be removed or suspended from office except  in\t the
\nmanner provided for removal or suspension of the Chairman or
\nMembers of the State Public Service Commission.
\nBy an order dated 24 February 1970 the Government of  Kerala
\nstated\tthat the post of Vigilance  Commissioner  sanctioned
\nwas  temporary and the … Present sanction for the post  of
\nVigilance Commissioner will expire on 28 February, 1970\t and
\nthat  for  the\tstaff of the Commission will  expire  on  28
\nFebruary,   1971″.   The  order\t further  stated  that\t the
\nGovernment having considered all aspects of the matter\tcame
\nto the conclusion that there was no need to have a Vigilance
\nCommissioner.\tThe Government, therefore, ordered that\t the
\npost  of  Vigilance  Commissioner would\t be  abolished\twith
\neffect from 28 February, 1970.\tThe continuance of the staff
\nof  the\t Commission upto 15 March, 1970\t was  sanctioned  to
\nenable the office of the Commission to wind up its work.  It
\nmay  be stated her– that ill the Government Order  dated  3
\nDecember, 1969 sanction for the continuance of the staff  in
\ntemporary posts from 1 March, 1970 to 28 February, 1971\t was
\naccorded.   The\t affidavit  evidence of\t the  Government  of
\nKerala\tabout the continuance of the temporary posts in\t the
\nstaff of the Vigilance Commission till 28 February, 1971  is
\nthat  the budget for 1970-71 was prepared in advance of\t the
\npresentation  of the’-proposal in the Legislature.   At\t the
\ntime when the proposals were forwarded by the Administrative
\nDepartments   concerned\t with  the  establishment   of\t the
\nVigilance Commissioner no decision had been taken  regarding
\nthe  abolition\tof the post of the  Vigilance  Commissioner.
\nAfter\ttaking\tthe  decision  to  abolish   the   Vigilance
\nCommission  the\t Government considered\tthe  feasibility  of
\nomitting  the provisions in the budget, but it was found  to
\nbe  too\t late to make any changes.  The\t post  of  Vigilance
\nCommissioner was sanctioned upto 28 February, 1970..
\nThe  appellant\tRamanatha  Pillai  raised  three   principal
\ncontentions in the High Court.\tFirst, that the abolition of
\nthe  post of Vigilance Commissioner amounted to\t removal  of
\nthe appellant from service within the meaning of Article 311<\/a>
\nof the Constitution.  Second, that the abolition of the post
\nwas  made mala fide.  Third, the appellant entered  into  an
\nagreement  with\t the Government and by accepting  the  offer
\nchanged\t his  position\tand the\t State\twas  precluded\tfrom
\naltering  the  terms  of  agreement  on\t the  principle\t  of
\nestoppel.   The\t High  Court  did  not\taccept\tany  of\t the
\ncontentions.   The High Court held that the  termination  of
\nservice\t resulting from the abolition of the post would\t not
\nattract\t the provisions of Article 311<\/a> of the  Constitution.
\nThe High Court however added that this would be so when\t the
\nabolition of the post was not a colourable exercise of power
\nwith a view to removing.the incumbent holding the post\tfrom
\nservice.  The High
\n519<\/span>
\nCourt in the facts and circumstances came to the  conclusion
\nthat  it  was.\timpossible to draw any\tinference  that\t the
\nabolition of the post was. with a motive of doing away\twith
\nthe services of the petitioner.\t The High Court held that no
\nestoppel  could\t arise or operate to fetter the\t powers\t and
\ndiscretion of the Government if in the interest of  adminis-
\ntration\t and in public interest certain alterations  in\t the
\nestablishment  were made and new posts or  departments\twere
\ncreated.   The reason given by the High Court was that\tthis
\nwould be a governmental function and the court would not sit
\nin judgment on such action and decide whether the course was
\nproper\tor not.\t The High Court, therefore, held that  there
\ncould  not  be any estoppel against the\t Government  in\t the
\ndischarge of duty owed to the public.  The ratio of the High
\nCourt  judgment\t is  that there cannot\tbe  an\testoppel  in
\nrespect\t of  statutory provisions of the governance  of\t the
\nState Which are made for the benefit of some one other\tthan
\nthe person against whom the estoppel is asserted.
\nIn Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1970 the questions raised in the
\nHigh  Court  were whether the abolition of  the\t Subordinate
\nServices  Selection Board and the consequential\t termination
\nof the services of the Chairman and the Member of the  Board
\nattracted  application of Article 311<\/a> of  the  Constitution.
\nThe  High Court found that the State Government\t decided  in
\npublic interest to abolish the Board.  There were bickerings
\namong the Members of the Board.\t The Administrative  Reforms
\nCommission  recommended\t the abolition of  the\tBoard.\t The
\nappointment  of\t the Members was of a  temporary  character.
\nConsequent upon the abolition of the Board there existed  no
\npost on which the appellants could claim appointment.
\nCivil  Appeal  No. 248 of 1971 concerns posts  held  by\t the
\nappellants in the Industrial Training Institute in  Haryana.
\nThe  appellants were permanent employees- Their\t posts\twere
\nabolished  with effect from 26 March 1969.   The  Government
\nterminated  their services upon the abolition of the  posts.
\nThe appellants raised the similar question as to whether the
\nabolition  of  posts  would  attract  article  311<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe  High Court relied on  its\tdecision  in
\nCivil Appeal No. 2231 of 1970 and held that the abolition of
\nposts did not attract Article 311<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nThe contentions on behalf of the appellant Ramanatha  Pillai
\nwere  these.   First,  the  order  abolishing  the  post  is
\nvitiated  by  mala fides of respondent No.  2.\tSecond,\t the
\nabolition  of  the post does not  terminate  the  agreement,
\ndated  20 December, 1968.  Third, the abolition of the\tpost
\nhas the effect of terminating the services of the appellant,
\nand,  therefore, it is invalid by reason  of  non-compliance
\nwith  the  provisions of Article 311<\/a>  of  the  Constitution.
\nFourth, the order of the Government was made without  giving
\nan  opportunity\t to the appellant and thereby  violated\t the
\nprinciples  of natural justice.\t It was said that the  order
\nof  Government entailing the civil consequences of  loss  of
\nservice could be made only after observing the principles of
\nnatural\t justice.  Fifth, the principle of estoppel  applies
\nto  the\t case that it was not lawful for the  Government  to
\nterminate the services of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
520<\/span><\/p>\n
On behalf of the other appellants the contentions are these.
\nThe  right to permanent tenure is created by rules or  Acts.
\nThe  executive decision cannot put an end to  these  rights.
\nService Rules create statutory rights to receive salary\t and
\npension\t till the- age of superannuation.   These  statutory
\nrights\tconstitute  property within the meaning\t of  Article
\n19(1)(f<\/a>), 31(1)<\/a> and (2)<\/a> of the Constitution.  The  abolition
\nof  a,\tpost  is a mere executive  decision  and  it  cannot
\nterminate the statutory tenure of service nor can it  affect
\nfundamental rights without the support of a valid law.\t The
\ntenure\tcannot\tbe  taken away by rule or an  Act  which  is
\ninconsistent   with   Article  311  (1)<\/a>\t and  (2)<\/a>   of\t the
\n‘Constitution,\tboth before and after the amendment of\tthat
\nArticle.   After  amendment of Article\t311(1)<\/a>\ta  permanent
\nGovernment  servant holds office during good  behaviour\t and
\nthe  doctrine  of pleasure stands negatived  except  to\t the
\nextent\t saved\texpressly  by  Article\t310.<\/a>   A   premature
\ntermination  on abolition of post violates Articles  311(2),
\n19(1)  (f)  and\t 31 (1) and also Articles  14  and  16.\t  If
\ntermination of employment after notice is bad a\t termination
\nwithout notice without a valid rule is worse.
\nThe first question which falls for determination is  whether
\nthe Government has a right to abolish a post in the service.
\nThe power to create or abolish a post is not related to\t the
\ndoctrine  of  pleasure.\t  It is\t a  matter  of\tgovernmental
\npolicy.\t  Every sovereign Government has this power  in\t the
\ninterest  and  necessity of  internal  administration.\t The
\ncreation  or  abolition\t of  post  is  dictated\t by   policy
\ndecision,  exigencies  of circumstances\t and  administrative
\nnecessity.  The creation, the continuance and the  abolition
\nof post are all decided by the Government in the interest of
\nadministration and general public.\n<\/p>\n
The next question is whether abolition of post is  dismissal
\nor removal within The meaning of Article 311.<\/a>  This question
\nhas directly not come up for decision in this Court.   There
\nare  however observations on this aspect in three  decisions
\nof this Court.\tThese are Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union  of
\nIndia<\/a>  [1958] S.C.R. 828: Champaklal Chimanlal Shah  v.\t The
\nUnion of India<\/a> [1964] 5 S.C.R. 190 and Moti Ram Deka etc. v.
\nGeneral\t Manager,  N.E.F. Railways,  Maligaon,\tPandu,\tetc.
\n[1964] 5 S.C.R. 683.\n<\/p>\n
Article 311<\/a> as it stood prior to the Constitution  Fifteenth
\nAmendment Act., 1963 enacted that no person as mentioned  in
\nArticle 31 1 (1)<\/a> shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in
\nrank  until  he has been given a reasonable  opportunity  of
\nshowing\t cause\tagainst the action proposed to be  taken  in
\nregard\tto him.\t After the Constitution Fifteenth  Amendment
\nAct,  1963  Article 311<\/a> states that no person  mentioned  in
\nArticle 311 (1)<\/a> shall be dismissed or removed or reduced  in
\nrank  except after an enquiry in which he has been  informed
\nof  all\t the  charges against him and  giving  a  reasonable
\nopportunity  of\t being heard in respect\t of  those  charges.
\nFurther, where it is Proposed, after such enquiry, to impose
\non  him any such penalty of dismissal, removal or  reduction
\nin  rank he has to be riven an opportunity of making  repre-
\nsentation to the penalty proposed.\n<\/p>\n
521<\/span><\/p>\n
Article\t 309<\/a> provides that subject to the provisions of\t the
\nConstitution,  Acts  of\t the  appropriate  Legislature\t may
\nregulate  the  recruitment  and\t conditions  of\t service  of
\npersons\t  appointed,  to  public  services  and\t  posts\t  in
\nconnection  with the affairs of the Union or of\t any  State.
\nTherefore,  Acts  in  respect of  terms\t and  conditions  of
\nservice\t  of  persons  are  contemplated.   Such   Acts\t  of
\nLegislature must however be subject to the provisions of the
\nConstitution.  This attracts Article 310(1).<\/a>  The proviso to
\nArticle\t 309<\/a>  makes it competent to the\t President  or\tsuch
\nperson as he may direct-in the case of services and posts in
\nconnection  with  the  affairs\tof the\tUnion  and  for\t the
\nGovernor  of a State or such person as he may direct in\t the
\ncase of services and posts in connection with the affairs of
\nthe State, to make rules regulating the recruitment and\t the
\nconditions of service of persons appointed, to such services
\nand  posts under the Union and the State.  These  Rules\t and
\nthe  exercise  of power conferred on the  delegate  must  be
\nsubject\t to  Article 310.<\/a>  The result is  that\tArticle\t 309<\/a>
\ncannot impair or affect the pleasure of the President or the
\nGovernor  therein specified.  Article 309<\/a> is, therefore,  to
\nbe read subject to Article 310.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
Article\t 310<\/a>  deals  with the tenure of\t office\t of  persons
\nserving\t the Union or the State.  Article 310<\/a> provides\tthat
\nsuch office is held during the pleasure of the President  if
\nthe  post is under the Union or during the pleasure  of\t the
\nGovernor  if the post is under the State.  The’ doctrine  of
\npleasure is thus embodied in Article 310(1).<\/a>  Article 310(2)<\/a>
\ndeals with cases of persons appointed under contract.\tThis
\nArticle provides that if the President or the Governor deems
\nit  necessary  to  secure the services of  a  person  having
\nspecial\t qualification, he may appoint him under  a  special
\ncontract.   Such a contract may provide for the\t payment  to
\nhim  of compensation if before the expiration of  an  agreed
\nperiod\tthat  post is abolished or he is,  for\treasons\t not
\nconnected  with\t any  misconduct on his\t part,\trequired  to
\nvacate\tthat  post.  It is noticeable that Article  310\t (1)<\/a>
\nbegins\twith a clause “except as expressly provided by\tthis
\nConstitution”.\t Therefore,  the  other\t provisions  in\t the
\nConstitution which impinge on Article 310<\/a> have the effect of
\nmaking\tArticle\t 310<\/a> to be subject to those  Articles.\t The
\nexceptions thus contemplated occur in Articles 124, 148, 218
\nand  324.   Another  important\texception  is  Article\t311.<\/a>
\nArticle 311<\/a> is however not subject to any other provision of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
When  Article 311<\/a> states that no person shall be  dismissed,
\nremoved\t or  reduced  in  rank until he\t has  been  given  a
\nreasonable  opportunity of showing cause against the  action
\nproposed  to  be  taken\t in  regard  to\t him  it  affords  a
\nprotection and security of Government service.\tArticle\t 311<\/a>
\napplies\t to  all  Government  servants\tholding\t  permanent,
\ntemporary or officiating post.\tThe protection afforded by
\nArticle\t 311<\/a> is however limited to the imposition  of  three
\nmajor penalties.  These are dismissal, removal or  reduction
\nin rank.  The words ,’dismissed”, “removed” and “reduced  in
\nrank”  are technical words.  Both in the case of removal  or
\ndismissal  there  is  a stigma.\t It also  involves  loss  of
\nbenefit.   There may also be an element of  personal  blame-
\nworthiness. of the Government servant.\tReduction in rank is
\nalso a punishment.  The expression “rank” in Article  311(7)<\/a>
\nhas I reference
\n522<\/span>
\nto a person’s classification and not to his particular place
\nin  the same cadre in the hierarchy of the service to  which
\nhe   belongs.\tMerely\tsending\t back  a  servant   to\t his
\nsubstantive post has been held not to be a reduction in rank
\nas  a punishment since he had no legal right to continue  in
\nofficiating post.  The striking cut of a name from the panel
\nhas been held to affect future rights of promotion and to be
\na reduction in rank.\n<\/p>\n
A  reduction  in  rank is a punishment\tif  it\tcarries\t pen
\nconsequences ,With it.\tIn Dhingra case (supra) it has\tbeen
\nsaid that whether a servant is punished by way of  reduction
\nin rank is to be, found by applying one of the two following
\ntests  : whether the servant has a right to the post or\t the
\nrank or whether evil consequences’such as forfeiture of\t pay
\nor  allowances\tloss of seniority in his  substantive  rank,
\nstoppage  ,or  postponement of future chances  of  promotion
\nfollow as a result of the order.\n<\/p>\n
Any  and  every\t termination of\t service  cannot  amount  to
\ndismissal  or  removal.\t A termination\tof  service  brought
\nabout by the exercise of ,contractual right is not by itself
\ndismissal  or  removal. (See  Satish Chandra  Anand  v.\t The
\nUnion  of  India<\/a> (1953 S.C.R. 665).  Again,  termination  of
\nservice by compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule
\nregulating  the conditions of service is not  tantamount  to
\ninfliction  of\ta punishment and does  not  attract  Article
\n311(2).<\/a>\t (See  Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and the  Union  of
\nIndia<\/a>  (1955  1 S.C.R. 26).  Similarly the retirement  of  a
\npermanent servant on his attaining the age of superannuation
\ndoes not amount to his removal within the meaning of Article
\n311(2).<\/a>\t In these cases the termination of service does\t not
\n,carry\twith  it ,he penal consequences of loss\t of  pay  or
\nallowances.\n<\/p>\n
The ruling in Dhingra case (supra) is that the protection of
\nArticle\t 311<\/a> is afforded to permanent as well  as  temporary
\nposts  or officiating in any of them.  Where a person has  a
\nsubstantive  appointment to a permanent post he has a  right
\nto hold the post until, under the ,rules, he attains the age
\nof  superannuation or is compulsorily retired  after  having
\nput  in the prescribed number of years’ service or the\tpost
\nis abolished and his service cannot be terminated except  by
\nway  of punishment for misconduct, negligence,\tinefficiency
\nor  any other disqualification found against him on  enquiry
\nafter  due notice to him.  This is the statement of  law  in
\nDhingra\t case  as well as Moti Ram Deka\t case  (supra).\t  An
\nappointment  to\t a temporary post for  a  certain  specified
\nperiod\tgives the servant a right to hold the post  for\t the
\nentire period of his tenure, and his tenure cannot be put an
\nend  to\t during\t that  period  unless  he  is,\tby  way\t  of
\npunishment,  dismissed or removed from the service.   Except
\nin  these two cases the appointment to a post, permanent  or
\ntemporary,  on\tprobation or on an officiating\tbasis  or  a
\nsubstantive  appointment  to a temporary post gives  to\t the
\nservant\t so appointed no right to the post and\this  service
\nmay  be terminated unless his service had ripened into\twhat
\nis, in the service rules, called a quasi-permanent  service.
\n(See Dhingra case (supra) ). A post may be abolished in good
\nfaith.\tThe order abolishing the post may lose its effective
\ncharacter   if\t it  is\t established  to  have\t been\tmade
\narbitrarily,  malafide\tor as a mask of\t some  penal  action
\nwithin the meaning of Article 311(2).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
523<\/span><\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants relied on the observations at pp.
\n706-707\t of the Report in Moti-Ram Deka case  (supra).\t The
\nobservations are these.\t “A person who substantively holds a
\npermanent post has a right to continue in service,  subject,
\nof course, to the rule of superannuation and the rule as  to
\ncompulsory retirement. if for any other reason that right is
\ninvaded\t and  he  is  asked.  to  leave\t his  service,\t the
\ntermination  of his service must inevitably mean the  defeat
\nof  his right to continue in service and as such, it  is  in
\nthe  nature  of a penalty and amounts  to  removal”.   These
\nobservations  were  extracted in support of  the  contention
\nthat  Moti  Ram Deka case (supra) is an\t authority  for\t the
\nproposition that abolition of post amounts to removal.\tThat
\nis  totally  misreading the decision in Moti Ram  Deka\tcase
\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n
The  phrase “if for any other reason that right is  invaded”
\nis  in\tjuxtaposition to the two exceptions of the  rule  of
\nsuperannuation\tand  the rule of  compulsory  retirement  as
\nexceptions  to the applicability of Article 311.<\/a>  The  third
\nexception  of termination as a result of the abolition of  a
\npost  was  not\tbeing  considered in  that  portion  of\t the
\njudgment  in  Moti Ram Deka case (supra).   Earlier  in\t the
\njudgment  in  Moti Ram Deka case (supra) it is said  that  a
\npermanent servant would normally acquire a right to hold the
\npost   until  under  the  rules\t he  attained  the  age\t  of
\nsuperannuation\tor was compulsorily retired or the post\t was
\nabolished.   The  same\tview is\t taken\tin  Champaklal\tcase
\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n
In Moti Ram Deka case (supra) it was said that the statement
\nof  law\t in  Dhingra  case (supra)  “in\t the  absence  of  a
\ncontract, express or implied, or service rule the  permanent
\nservant cannot be turned out” would permit the authority  to
\nterminate the service of a permanent servant under terms  of
\ncontract  or  service rules without taking  the\t case  under
\nArticle 311<\/a> though such termination might amount to  removal
\nor compulsory retirement.  Ibis Court in Moti Rant Deka case
\n(supra) did not agree with this statement of law in  Dhingra
\ncase  (supra) and laid down the law to be that where a\trule
\nis alleged to violate the constitutional guarantee  afforded
\nby  Article  311 (2)<\/a> the argument of  contract\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t and its binding character is wholly  inappropriate.
\nThe  introduction  of the two clauses “in the absence  of  a
\ncontract, expressed or implied, or service rule” in Dhingra.
\ncase  (supra) was by reason of consideration of Rule  49  in
\nthat  case. Rule 49 spoke of termination of employment of  a
\nprohibationer  or a temporary servant or a servant  under  a
\ncontract  not to amount to removal or dismissal\t within\t the
\nmeaning of that Rule.  That is why these two clauses, it was
\npointed\t out in Moti Ram Deka case, would have no  relevance
\nor application to permanent servants.\n<\/p>\n
In other words, it was said that the two tests laid down  in
\nDhingra\t case (supra) first whether the servant had a  right
\nto  hold the post and whether he had been visited with\tevil
\nconsequences  of  the  kind referred  to  therein  were\t not
\ncumulative  but were alternative.  Therefore, if  the  first
\ntest  was satisfied termination of the\tpermanent  servant’s
\nservices  would amount to removal because his right  to\t the
\npost  is prematurely invaded.  This ruling in Moti Ram\tDeka
\n(supra) is
\n524<\/span>
\non the relevant issue as to whether the order of termination
\nwith notice as contemplated in Rule 149 (3) was valid.\tSuch
\na rule was found to be a clear infraction of Article 31 1.<\/a>
\nThe  statement\tof law in Dhingra case (supra) that  in\t the
\nabsence\t of  a contract, express or implied,  or  a  service
\nrule,  a permanent servant cannot be turned out of his\tpost
\nunless\tthe  post  is abolished or unless he  is  guilty  of
\nmisconduct was examined In Moti Ram Deka case.
\nIn  Moti  Ram  Deka case (supra) it has been  said  that  in
\nregard\tto temporary servants or servants on  probation\t the
\nterms  of  contract  or service rules may  provide  for\t the
\ntermination  of the service on notice of a specified  period
\nor  on\tpayment\t of salary for the said period,\t and  if  in
\nexercise  of  the  power thus conferred the  services  of  a
\ntemporary  or probationary servant are terminated,’  it\t may
\nnot necessarily amount to removal. , If it is shown that the
\ntermination   of   services  is\t no  more   than   discharge
\nsimpliciter  effected  by  virtue of the  contract,  or\t the
\nrelevant  rules,  Article 311 (2)<\/a> may not be  applicable  to
\nsuch  a case, If, however, the, termination of\ta  temporary
\nservant’s service in substance represents a penalty  imposed
\non  him\t or punitive action is taken against him  then\tsuch
\ntermination would amount to removal and Article 311(2)<\/a> would
\nbe  attracted.\tThe position would be the same in regard  to
\nreduction in rank of an officiating servant.
\nThe termination of the service of a permanent servant on the
\nterms  of  a contract or under a service rule  will  attract
\nArticle 311<\/a> if such termination is in the nature of  penalty
\nand  amounts to removal.  This statement of law in Moti\t Ram
\nDeka  case (supra) is on the consideration of  Rules  148(3)
\nand  149(3) of the Indian Railway establishment\t Code,\tRule
\n148(3)\tdeals with non-pensionable railway  servants.\tRule
\n149(3)\tdeals with other railway servants.  Both  the  rules
\nprovided  that\tthe  service of railway\t servant  “shall  be
\nliable\tto  termination\t on notice on  either  side  of\t the
\nperiods\t shown below.” Such notice is ‘not however  required
\nunder  those’  Rules 148(3)149(3).in cases of  dismissal  or
\nremoval as a disciplinary measure after compliance with\t the
\nprovisions of clause (2)of Article 311<\/a> of the  Constitution,
\nretirement  on\tattaining  the age  of\tsuperannuation.\t and
\ntermination of service due to mental or physical incapacity.
\nIn Moti Ram.  Deka case (supra) it was held that neither  of
\nthe  two  rules contemplated an enquiry and in none  of\t the
\nactual cases there the procedure’ prescribed by Article\t 311
\n(2)<\/a> was followed.  In Moti Ram Deka case (supra) Rule 149(3)
\nwhich  permitted  termination  for service  with  notice  in
\ncases  of misconduct, to which the second part of  the\tRule
\napplied was found to, be unconstitutional.
\nRules  148 and 149 in Moti  Ram Deka case  (supra)  referred
\nto;  retirement\t on superannuation and\ttermination  due  to
\nphysical  or mental incapacity.\t These\tconsiderations\twere
\nnot  fixed on any ad hoc basis and did not involve  exercise
\nof  any\t discretion.  these  Rules  would  apply  uniformity
\nservants under those categories.\n<\/p>\n
525<\/span><\/p>\n
is  in this background that the two clauses “in the  absence
\nof  a  contract expressed or implied, or  service  rule”  in
\nDhingar case (supra) were read to support the reasoning that
\nin  regard to a permanent civil servant the  termination  of
\nhis services otherwise than under the rule of superannuation
\nor compulsory retirement would amount to removal.  Rules 148
\nand 149 authorised Administration to terminate the  services
\nof  all\t the  permanent servants  on  giving  notice.\tThat
\nclearly amounted to the removal of the servant in question.
\nArgument  was  advanced in Moti Ram Deka case  (supra)\tthat
\nArticle\t 310(1)<\/a> and Article 311<\/a> are to be construed in\tsuch
\nmanner\tthat  the pleasure contemplated by Article  310\t (1)<\/a>
\ndoes  not become illusory.  The contention was that  Article
\n311  (2)<\/a>  was in the nature of proviso and an  exception  to
\nArticle\t 310<\/a> and in all cases falling outside the  scope  of
\nArticle\t 311<\/a> the pleasure of the President or  the  Governor
\nmust  be allowed to rule.  This Court in Moti Ram Deka\tcase
\n(supra)\t said that the pleasure of the President has  to  be
\nexercised  in  accordance with the requirements\t of  Article\n<\/p>\n
311.  Once  it is shown that a permanent  civil\t servant  is
\nremoved from service Article 311 (2)<\/a> would apply and Article
\n310  (1)<\/a> cannot be invoked independently with the object  of
\njustifying  the contravention of the provisions\t of  Article
\n311(2)<\/a>
\nWhere it was said in Moti Ram Deka (Supra) that the order of
\ntermination could be effective after complying with  Article
\n311<\/a>  it\t was presumed that the provisions  of  Article\t311<\/a>,
\nviz., issue of the charge-sheet, enquiry would be applicable
\nto  such cases of termination.\tWith regard to abolition  of
\npost and consequential termination no charges could normally
\nbe  framed and no enquiry could be held.   Therefore,  apart
\nfrom  the  consideration  that\tabolition  of  post  is\t not
\ninfliction  of\ta  penalty  like  dismissal  or\t removal  or
\nreduction  in rank, the framing of charge, the\tenquiry\t and
\nopportunity  of\t showing  cause against\t the  imposition  of
\npenalty\t cannot normally apply to the case of  abolition  of
\npost.\tThe  discharge of the civil servant  on\t account  of
\nabolition of the post held by him is not an action which  is
\nproposed  to  be taken as a personal Penalty but  it  is  an
\naction\tconcerning  the\t policy\t of  the  State\t whether   a
\npermanent post should continue or not.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the power
\nto abolish the post is derived from the doctrine of pleasure
\nas  embodied  in Article 310<\/a> and since Moti  Ram  Deka\tcase
\n(supra)\t has abolished the doctrine of pleasure there  would
\nnot exist any power to abolish the post.  This contention is
\nunsound.  The power to abolish any civil post is inherent in
\nevery sovereign Government.  This power is a policy decision
\nexercised by the executive.  This power is necessary for the
\nproper functioning and internal administration of the State.
\nThe doctrine of pleasure as embodied in Article 310<\/a> has\t not
\nbeen  abolished in Moti Ram Deka case (supra).\tIt has\tbeen
\nmade  subject  to  Article 311.<\/a>\t The  doctrine\tof  pleasure
\ncannot be invoked to terminate the services in contravention
\nof  Article 31 1.<\/a> Article 310(2)<\/a> throws a decisive light  on
\nthe  nature of tenure of office provided by Article  310(1).<\/a>
\nArticle\t 310(2)<\/a>\t recognises the consequences of\t service  at
\npleasure  and  expressly overrides them in  a  very  limited
\nclass of cases.\t These cases are where a fixed term con-\n<\/p>\n
526<\/span><\/p>\n
tract  is  made.   Article  310(2<\/a>),  authorises\t payment  of
\ncompensation   to  a  government  servant  if\tbefore\t the
\nexpiration  of that period the post is abolished or he,\t for
\nreasons\t not connected with any misconduct, is\trequired  to
\nvacate,\t the post.  The termination under Art. 310(2)<\/a> is  in
\ncases\tof   contract\thaving\t specific   provisions\t for
\ncompensation.  Moti Ram Deka case (supra) has not  abolished
\nthe doctrine of pleasure as embodied in Article 310.<\/a> Article
\n310<\/a>  has been made subject to Article 311<\/a> where\t termination
\nis by way of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for  the appellants contended\tthat  since  Article
\n310(2)<\/a>\trefers to the event of abolition of post such  right
\nis  limited by provision for compensation and the  necessity
\nof  securing  the  services of\tthe  person  having  special
\nqualification.\t It is, therefore, argued on behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  that  there was no unconditional  right  in\t the
\nExecutive  or  the  legislature to abolish  the\t post.\t The
\nconcept\t of  contract  of  payment  of\tcompensation  is  an
\nexception to the doctrine of pleasure as embodied in Article
\n310(1).<\/a>\t  The reference to abolition of post in Article\t 310
\n(2)<\/a> is in relation to payment of compensation as a provision
\nin  the contract.  The provisions of Article 310(2)<\/a>  furnish
\nintrinsic  evidence that the right to abolish the post is  a
\ncategory of power exercisable by the State.  Article 310<\/a>  is
\nprefaced   by\tthe  words  “expressly\tprovided   by\tthis
\nConstitution.”\n<\/p>\n
The   abolition\t of  post  may\thave  the   consequence\t  of
\ntermination  of\t service  of  a\t government  servant.\tSuch
\ntermination  is not dismissal or removal within the  meaning
\nof  Article  311<\/a> of the Constitution.\tThe  opportunity  of
\nshowing\t cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal  or
\nremoval does not therefore arise in the case of abolition of
\npost.\tThe  abolition\tof post is not\ta  personal  penalty
\nagainst the government servant.\t The abolition of post is an
\nexecutive  policy decision.  Whether after abolition of\t the
\npost. the Government servant who was holding the post  would
\nor  could  be offered any employment under the\tState  would
\ntherefore  be a matter of policy decision of the  Government
\nbecause the abolition of post does not confer on the  person
\nholding the abolished post any right to hold the post.
\nThe High Court was correct in holding that no estoppel could
\narise against the State in regard to abolition of post.\t The
\nappellant   Ramanathan\tPillai\tKnew  that  the\t  post\t was
\ntemporary.   In\t American  Jurisprudence  2d  at  page\t 783
\nparagraph  123\tit  is stated “Generally,  a  state  is\t not
\nsubject\t to  an\t estoppel  to  the  same  extent  as  in  an
\nindividual or a private corporation.  Otherwise it might  be
\nrendered  helpless  to\tassert\tits  powers  in\t government.
\nTherefore  as a general rule the doctrine of  estoppel\twill
\nnot be applied against the state in its governmental, public
\nor  sovereign capacity.\t An exception how-, ever  arises  in
\nthe  application  of  estoppel\tto the\tState  where  it  is
\nnecessary  to  prevent fraud or\t manifest  injustice”.\t The
\nestoppel  alleged by the appellant Ramanathan Pillai was  on
\nthe  ground  that he entered into an agreement\tand  thereby
\nchanged\t his  position\tto his detriment.   The\t High  Court
\nrightly\t held that the, courts exclude the operation of\t the
\ndoctrine  of estoppel, when it is found that  the  authority
\nagainst\t whom  estoppel is pleaded has owed a  duty  to\t the
\npublic against whom the estoppel cannot fairly operate.\n<\/p>\n
527<\/span><\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant Ramanathan Pillai repeated in this
\nCourt  the  allegations\t of  mala  fide\t in  regard  to\t the
\nabolition  of post.  Broadly the allegations were two  fold.
\nFirst,\tthat  the  second respondent made a  speech  in\t the
\nAssembly  and made references to the  appellant-which  would
\nshow  that the second respondent was biased  and  prejudiced
\nagainst\t the appellant.\t Second, after the abolition of\t the
\nVigilance  Commission  a new department\t was  created.\t The
\nfunctions  of the new department were the same as  those  of
\nthe Vigilance Commission.  Therefore. the object was not  to
\nabolish\t the Vigilance Commission and only to terminate\t the
\nservices  of the. appellant.  The High Court held  that\t the
\nState\tentertained  doubts  as\t to  the   advisability\t  of
\nestablishing   Vigilance  Commission  even  before  it\t was
\nconstituted  in\t 1965.\tAfter the retirement  of  the  first
\nVigilance Commissioner P. D. Nandana Menon the question\t was
\nagain considered.  Views were expressed that the  Commission
\nhad  not worked satisfactorily.\t The State,  therefore,\t de-
\ncided  to abolish the Vigilance Commission.  The High  Court
\nrightly held that the exigencies of administration  required
\nalterations  in\t the  establishment and creation  of  a\t new
\ndepartment.   This is a governmental function and  a  policy
\ndecision.   The\t High Court was correct that  there  was  no
\nreason\tto hold that there was colourable exercise of  power
\nby the State.\n<\/p>\n
The right to hold a post comes to an end on the abolition of
\nthe  post  which a Government servant holds.   Therefore.  a
\nGovernment servant cannot complain of a violation of Article
\n19(1)  (f)<\/a> and Article 31<\/a> of the Constitution when the\tpost
\nis abolished.\n<\/p>\n
Article\t 14<\/a>  is not attracted on the facts  of\tthe  present
\ncases.\tThe appellant in C.A. No. 275 of 1971 was  appointed
\nto  the ad hoc post of the Vigilance Commissioner.  In\tC.A.
\nNo.  2231  of  1970  the Chairman and  the  Members  of\t the
\nSubordinate Services Selection Board were discharged on\t the
\nabolition  of  that Board.  Their cases are similar  to\t the
\ncase of the appellant in C.A. No. 275 of 1971.\tIn C.A.\t No.
\n248  of 1971 the appellants were permanent teachers  of\t the
\nTraining Institute.  Their duty was to coach the trainees in
\ncertain\t subjects.   As\t the  trainees\tdid  not  offer\t the
\nsubjects  in  which the appellants  were  specialists,\tthey
\nbecame\tsurplus.  Their cases also resemble the case of\t the
\nappellant  in C.A. No. 275 of 1971.  On the facts  of  these
\ncases  the  appellants\tcannot\tcomplain  of  discrimination
\nbecause\t it  could not be and has not been  shown  that\t the
\nGovernment  servants similarly situated had been allowed  to
\nremain in service.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court  was correct in all the  three\t appeals  in
\ncoming\tto a conclusion that the abolition of post does\t not
\nattract Article 31 1.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
For   the  aforesaid  reasons  the  appeals  fail  and\t are
\ndismissed.  In view of the fact that the High Court did\t not
\nmake any order as to costs in these appeals each party\twill
\npay and bear his own costs in the three appeals.
\nV.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
528<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2641, 1974 SCR (1) 515 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien, Beg, M. Hameedullah, Dwivedi, S.N., Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: M. RAMANATHA PILLAI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-22T10:55:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T10:55:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\"},\"wordCount\":5899,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\",\"name\":\"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T10:55:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-22T10:55:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973","datePublished":"1973-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T10:55:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973"},"wordCount":5899,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973","name":"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T10:55:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ramanatha-pillai-vs-the-state-of-kerala-anr-with-on-27-august-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With … on 27 August, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259835","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}