Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of clause 2 of Art. 16,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of clause 2 of Art. 16,
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, born in Kalinjur village, Gudiattam Taluk, North ??? District, completed a compounder course in 1952 and was appointed temporarily as a compounder at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor, on 14-5-1953. Upon the formation of the State of Andhra on 1-10-1953, he continued in service. On 2-2-1955, the petitioner’s services were terminated by an order appointing another individual, Sri S. Balchandrarao, as compounder on the sole ground that the petitioner was a “non-Andhra.” The petitioner challenged this termination by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging violation of his fundamental right to employment under Article 16.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s temporary compounder post on the ground of being a “non-Andhra” violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds including place of birth in public employment.
  2. Whether Article 16 protections apply equally to temporary posts or are limited to permanent positions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that the termination order discriminated against him solely on the ground of his place of birth, which is prohibited by Article 16(2) of the Constitution guaranteeing equality of opportunity in public employment.
  • The petitioner asserted that such hostile discrimination is void and repugnant to constitutional provisions.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The learned Government Pleader argued that since the petitioner held only a temporary post, his services could be terminated at will and therefore Article 16 protections did not apply.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the impugned termination order and found that the sole reason for dismissal was the petitioner’s non-Andhra status, which constitutes discrimination based on place of birth. Article 16(2) explicitly forbids discrimination in public employment on such grounds. The court rejected the Government Pleader’s contention that Article 16 protections do not extend to temporary posts, emphasizing that the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity applies equally to all posts under the State, whether permanent or temporary. The court held that no limitations can be imposed on fundamental rights beyond those stated in the Constitution. Consequently, the termination order was declared void and quashed.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition was allowed, and the termination order dated 2-2-1955 was quashed.

The decision directly restores the petitioner’s right to employment and establishes that discrimination on the basis of place of birth is impermissible even in temporary government posts. No broader precedent beyond the application of Article 16 to temporary posts was articulated.

    A. Janakiraman v. State Of Andhra And Another

    Basi Reddy, J.:— This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution complaining of the infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right to employment guaranteed by Art. 16 of the Constitution.

    2. The petitioner was born in Kalinjur village, Gudiattam Taluk, North ??? District. He was educated at Vellore and later underwent the compounder course and became a qualified compounder in 1952. As there was a ??? for a compounder's post in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor the petitioner applied for it on 4-5-1953, and after interview, he was appointed temporarily to act as compounder with effect from 14-5-1953.

    3. On 1-10-1953 the State of Andhra was formed and the petitioner was retained in the service of the Andhra State, and he continued to serve a compounder in the said Hospital. On 2-2-1955 the petitioner received communication from the District Medical Officer and Superintendent, Government Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor, whereby his services were abruptly terminated. The order (Roc. No. 3102.B/54), which is challenged in this writ petition, ran thus:

    “Sri S. Balchandrarao, son of Sri S. Kuppurao, retired Head Clerk, Greassmpet, Chittoor, is appointed temporarily to act as compounder, Government Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor, ousting Sri A. Jankiraman, Acting Compounder, Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor, being a non-Andhra candidate. He is directed to join duty forthwith.”

    4. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner handed over charge on 4-2-1955.

    5. It will be observed that the sole ground on which the petitioner was ousted was that he is a “non-Andhra”; in other words, he was discriminated against only on the ground of his place of birth. Such hostile discrimination is forbidden by Art. 16 of the Constitution which, subject to certain reservations which are not material for purposes of this case, provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment. The relevant clauses run as follows:

    “1. There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

    2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.”

    6. Thus on the face of it, the impugned order, by which the petitioner was ousted and replaced by another on the one and only ground that the petitioner is a ‘non-Andhra’, is repugnant to the express provisions of clause 2 of Art. 16, and is as such void.

    7. The learned Government Pleader, however, contends that since the petitioner held only a temporary post and his services could be terminated at will, he cannot claim the benefit of Art. 16. We are not impressed with this argument. Clause 2 of Art. 16 recognizes no such distinction; it applies with equal rigour to all posts under the State, permanent as well as temporary. It is not permissible to engraft limitations upon the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

    8. We accordingly allow this writ petition with costs and quash the order in Roc. No. 3102.B/54, dated 2-2-1955, made by the D.M.O and Superintendent Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.

    K.S.R

    9. Writ allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    A. Janakiraman v. State Of Andhra And Another
    (Aug 19, 1958)