Reinstatement in Special Circumstances

Dr Kanshi Ram Anand vs. the State of U.P. and another

Filed under:Article 311 of the Constitution of India Rule 11, U.P. Public Health Service Rules
Appellant:Dr. Kanshi Ram Anand
Respondent: The State of U.P. and another
Citation:AIR 1956 Allahabad 330
Court: In the High Court of Allahabad
Judge:Mehrotra

Facts

Dr Kanshi Ram Anand was a refugee from Punjab who received his MBBS degree from a medical college in Lahore. He migrated from Pakistan to India in 1947 and started living in Saharanpur, UP. He was appointed to the UP Public Health Service for a period of six months and was then posted at Dehra-Dun as Medical Officer, Anti-Epidemic Operations.

After a period of about two months, he received a letter from the Assistant Director of the Medical and Health services stating that orders for his permanent appointment in the UP Public Health Service had been passed and he was accordingly advised to stick to his appointment. When serving at Dehra-Dun he was asked to appear before the Medical Board and was declared fit by the Board.

A year later, he again appeared before the UP Medical Board and was again declared fit. After this, he was appointed to the post on two years probation.

Once the probationary period expired, Kanshi Ram was transferred to Saharanpur as the Malaria Survey Officer. After about two years, he was directed to appear before the Medical Board in accordance with the rules of the Government. His application went before the Board and he was declared fit.

A month later, a letter was issued to him that stated that he had to appear before the Divisional Medical Board. The Board constituted of three doctors and out of these, one doctor opined that he was fit while the other two gave an unfavorable opinion regarding his health. He was then directed to appear before the State Medical Board at Lucknow.

Thereafter, a Government order was sent to Kanshi Ram, which stated that he had been declared unfit for retention in the service by the State Medical Board.

Accordingly, he was discharged from his post. After the order of discharge was sent, he made several representations to the head of his department. He received a communication from the Director of Medical and Health services, which stated that his representations had been rejected.

Subsequently he made three representations to the Governor asking for reinstatement and also for the revision of the order passed against him. In response to these, he received a reply from the Secretary to Government, U.P., in which it was stated that his representations had been rejected. He then filed this petition.

The opposite parties filed a counter-affidavit in which it was stated that there had been complaints against Kanshi’s work while he was employed as a Malaria Survey Officer. On the basis of these complaints the Assistant Director had made enquiries.

The Assistant Director claimed that Kanshi showed poor technical knowledge with respect to the Malaria Laboratory work. As a result, the Inspector-cum-Laboratory Assistant under him had not been able to attain proper technical guidance and training. Consequently, the work in the unit had been of poor quality.

It was also stated that Kanshi had been asked to refund the cost of a stopwatch and stove which were lost from the laboratory. It was also pointed out that the annual confidential reports on him contained an entry to the effect that stammering was a great physical defect with him. The Additional Director had stated in the confidential report that since he suffered from the problem of stammering he should be put before the Medical Board.

The report of the Medical Board was that so far as the duties of field work like Malaria Survey Officer was concerned, the defect of stammering did not interfere with his work. But if the duties involved making prolonged speeches or addressing big audience, stammering could be detrimental to the job.

It was also stated in the affidavit that he had been ultimately examined by the State Medical Board and on the recommendation of the State Board his services had been terminated.

Arguments made on behalf of Kanshi Ram

Kanshi’s main contention was that he was in permanent employment of the State Government and had been in service for seven years. According to him, any defect that he had was present even at the time of his employment. His main argument was that since he was a Government employee his services could not terminated without giving him a chance to defend himself against the order of his discharge.

Arguments made on behalf of the State of U.P

In response, the State of U.P stated that Kanshi was not a permanent employee. It was submitted that after his probationary period had expired he had been informed that his job would not be regularized in the U.P. Public Health Service unless he possessed a diploma in public health.

It was submitted that Kanshi had not raised any objection to this condition at that time and had applied for a Diploma in a Public Health course. He had been selected for the course and had cleared the Part I examination in the second attempt.

However, for the Part II examination he had been found using unfair means and had accordingly been expelled from the examination. The main contention of the U.P. Public Health Service department was that since Kanshi did not possess the necessary diploma he had not been confirmed after the expiration of his probation.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments put forth by both the parties. The Court held that the reasons given by the U.P. Public Health Department for withholding Kanshi’s confirmation were not valid.

The Court also pointed out that according to the Subordinate Public Health Service Rules the period of probation could not be extended for more than one year. Since Kanshi Ram had continued to work after the expiry of his probationary period, it could not be said that he was not a permanent employee of the State.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that because he was a permanent employee of the State Government he was entitled to a hearing and a notice before his services were terminated. The Court allowed that petition with costs and quashed the order of discharge. The Court further directed the State of U.P. to reinstate him in service.

Sections Referred:

• Article 311 of the Constitution of India.