Skip to content


S.E. Dean Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 28 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1956HP8
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 132 and 311
AppellantS.E. Dean
RespondentState of Himachal Pradesh
Advocates: Prithavi Raj, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredJawanti Prasad v. State of U. P.
Excerpt:
- .....now prays for grant of a certificate to enable her to appeal to the supreme court. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. the petition purports to be one under article 132 of the constitution. as is obvious from the perusal of that article, a certificate could be granted only if the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution. 3. learned counsel urged that, in the present case, there arises a question of interpretation of article 311 of the constitution. as was pointed out by me in my order of the 29th june last (following--'jawanti prasad v. state of u. p.', air 1951 all 793 (a)), the petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with the conditions on which she was appointed to a temporary post. consequently, there was no.....
Judgment:

Ramabhadran, J.C.

1. The petitioner applied to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that a writ be issued to the Himachal Pradesh Government directing the re-instatement of the petitioner as junior clerk. That petition was rejected by this Court on 29-6-1955 without issuing notice to the respondent. The petitioner now prays for grant of a certificate to enable her to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition purports to be one under Article 132 of the Constitution. As is obvious from the perusal of that Article, a certificate could be granted only if the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

3. Learned counsel urged that, in the present case, there arises a question of interpretation of Article 311 of the Constitution. As was pointed out by me in my order of the 29th June last (following--'Jawanti Prasad v. State of U. P.', AIR 1951 All 793 (A)), the petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with the conditions on which she was appointed to a temporary post.

Consequently, there was no question of dismissal or removal and, therefore, Article 311 had no application. Mr. Prithvi Raj suggested that the present case could be distinguished, because, here, the petitioner was, at first, charge-sheeted, but subsequently her services were terminated without entering a finding against her.

In my opinion, this amounts, at the worst, toa mistake of procedure in the preliminary stages.The fact, however, remains that the petitioner'sservices were terminated in accordance/ with theterms of her appointment and learned counsel doesnot dispute this. Therefore, Article 311 does not comeinto play at all. Consequently, there is no questionof law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.The petition fails and is, accordingly, rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //