Judgment

BHCHAWAT, J.:- The appellant was a temporary Civil Judge in Madhya Pradesh. On March 14, 1961 an order was issued in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh State that the appellant "is appointed temporarily, until further orders, as Civil Judge". Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 provided:-

"12(a). Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the government and the temporary government servant, the service of a temporary government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant:

Provided that the services of any such government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period;

Provided further that the payment of allowance shall be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are admissible.

(b) The periods of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government and the Government servant".

2. On March 25, 1964 an order was issued by and in the name of the Government terminating the appellant s services. The order stated:-

"The service of Shri Ram Gopal Chaturvedi temporary Civil Judge, Waidhan, are terminated with effect from the 1st June 1960, forenoon".

The appellant filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court for quashing the order dated March 25, 1964. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition. It held that the impugned order was not by way of punishment and that the appellant s services were liable to be terminated under the aforesaid rule 12 on one month s notice. The appellant has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave.

3. The appellant was a temporary government servant and was not in quasi-permanent service. His services could be terminated on one month s notice under Rule 12. There was no provision in the order of appointment or in any agreement that his services could not be so terminated.

4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 12 was unconstitutional as it was framed without consulting the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. The contention raises mixed questions of law and fact. It was not raised in the High Court, and we indicated in the course of arguments that the appellant could not be allowed to raise it in this Court for the first time.

5. Counsel next submitted that Rule 12 was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this contention. Rule 12 applies to all temporary government servants who are not in quasi-permanent service. All such government servants are treated alike. The argument that Rule 12 confers an arbitrary and unguided discretion is devoid of any merit. The services of a temporary government servant may be terminated on one month s notice whenever the government thinks it necessary or expedient to do so for administrative reasons. It is impossible to define before-hand all the circumstances in which the discretion can be exercised. The discretion was necessarily left to the government.

6. It was argued that the appellant s services could not be terminated on one month s notice as (a) his confirmation was recommended by the High Court after the expiry of the probationary period and (b) the advertisement dated September 9, 1960 inviting application for the temporary posts of civil judges did not specifically mention that their services could be so terminated. The point that the High Court had recommended the appellant s confirmation was not raised in the High Court and cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court for the first time. The apellant s services were subject to