Temporary officiating appointment ending on permanent selection did not amount to dismissal, and writ interference was unwarranted.

Article 311(2) is attracted only when service is prematurely terminated contrary to the terms of appointment; an officiating Mouzadar who was engaged on a temporary basis could be replaced on appointment of a permanent incumbent without that replacement amounting to dismissal or removal. The challenge to the permanent appointment also failed because the allegation of mala fides was unsupported by pleadings or evidence, and the administrative selection was made within the discretion conferred by the governing instructions. In the absence of legal or procedural infirmity, no writ interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's continuance as officiating Mouzadar and replacement by a permanent appointee amounted to dismissal or removal so as to attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the appointment of the permanent Mouzadar was vitiated by mala fides or was open to interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's continuance as officiating Mouzadar and replacement by a permanent appointee amounted to dismissal or removal so as to attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner was allowed to continue only as a temporary officiating arrangement until a permanent Mouzadar was appointed. The appointment was linked to the existing vacancy and the petitioner was aware that his continuance depended on that arrangement. On the permanent appointment being made, his service ended by operation of the conditions of his engagement and not by a premature compulsory termination. The protection against dismissal or removal under Article 311(2) applies to termination of service before the normal expiry of the term or contrary to the conditions of service.

Conclusion: The case did not amount to dismissal or removal, and Article 311(2) was not attracted.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment of the permanent Mouzadar was vitiated by mala fides or was open to interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The allegation of mala fides was unsupported by pleadings or evidence. The selection was made by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the discretion conferred by the relevant administrative instructions governing appointment of Mouzadars. The High Court would not sit in appeal over that administrative choice or substitute its own assessment where no legal or procedural infirmity was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge on mala fides and merits failed, and no writ interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected because the petitioner's service ended according to the temporary arrangement and the impugned appointment disclosed no legal ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 311(2) is attracted only where service is prematurely terminated against the incumbent's will and contrary to the terms of appointment; a temporary officiating arrangement that ends on appointment of a permanent incumbent does not amount to dismissal or removal, and an administrative appointment made within jurisdiction is not to be reappraised in writ proceedings absent proved mala fides or legal infirmity.

---