Bona fide abolition of a post is generally valid, but a suspended substantive lien revives on abolition under service rules.

A bona fide abolition of a government post taken as an administrative measure is not ordinarily struck down as arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16, and judicial review is limited to cases of mala fides or colourable exercise of power. The department's reorganisation and abolition of the post were treated as valid administrative action taken in financial stringency, so the constitutional challenge failed. At the same time, where a government servant's substantive lien was only suspended while holding an outside permanent post, the lien revives on abolition of that post unless it has been lawfully terminated in the manner required by the service rules. The respondent therefore retained his lien on the earlier post.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the abolition of the post held by the respondent was arbitrary or otherwise liable to be struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether, on abolition of that post, the respondent's lien on his substantive post of Head Assistant revived so that his services could not be terminated.

Issue (i): whether the abolition of the post held by the respondent was arbitrary or otherwise liable to be struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The decision to abolish a post is primarily an executive matter for the Government. Judicial interference is warranted only if the abolition is shown to be not in good faith or to be a cloak for penal action against the incumbent. On the materials placed, the reorganisation of the department and the abolition of the post were treated as administrative measures taken to meet financial stringency, and the Court found no basis to characterise the action as mala fide or arbitrary. The fact that other posts continued or that the incumbent was permanent did not by itself invalidate the policy decision.

Conclusion: The abolition of the post was valid and the challenge based on Articles 14 and 16 failed.

Issue (ii): whether, on abolition of that post, the respondent's lien on his substantive post of Head Assistant revived so that his services could not be terminated.

Analysis: Under the applicable service rules, when a government servant is appointed substantively to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne, the lien on the substantive post is suspended and revives when he ceases to hold the outside post, unless there is a written request terminating it. No written request by the respondent was shown. The Court therefore held that abolition of the later post did not extinguish his substantive lien and that the lien on the post of Head Assistant revived immediately on abolition.

Conclusion: The respondent's lien on the post of Head Assistant revived on abolition of the post held by him, and consequential service adjustments were required.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the abolition of the post failed, but the respondent retained his substantive lien on the earlier post, so the judgment below was set aside in part and the service position was required to be dealt with in accordance with the revived lien.

Ratio Decidendi: Abolition of a post taken bona fide as an administrative measure is not justiciable as arbitrariness, but where a government servant's substantive lien had only been suspended, it revives on cessation of the outside post unless lawfully terminated in the manner prescribed by the service rules.

---