Ahmad, J.

1. In this application, which has been filed on behalf of only one petitioner, namely, Sukhnandan Thakur, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the substantial question raised is that the Government Circular Letter No. ED/R 302/54 P.C. 3493 dated the 23rd February, 1954 is void as it contravene Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the order passed on the basis of that the Circular Letter terminating the service cf the petitioner as Supply Inspector from the 28th February. 1954 is illegal and invalid in law. On this ground the petitioner in this application has prayed for the issue of a writ or direction restraining the respondents from enforcing the aforesaid order passed against him.

2. The case of the petitioner is that originally he was appointed as a Market Inspector on the 7th August, 1946 in the Supply and Rationing Department at Muzaffarpur on a salary of Rs. 85 per month. In this post he worked till the 9th December, 1947, on which date his services were dispensed with due to retrenchment then made in the Department. Thereafter on the 13th October, 1948 he was re-appointed as a Supply Inspector on a scale of Rs. 100-5-125-E. B.-150 in the Supply and Price Control Department at Muzaffarpur. While he was in employment as such, he on the 27th February, 1954 received the following order from the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur;

"In accordance with Government orders "your services as Supply Inspector will terminate on 28-2-54. You are, therefore, directed to make over all official papers etc., to Shri Jyotindranath Mukherji, District Supply Inspector by 27-2-54." and on the basis of this order his services were terminated from the 23th February, 1954.

3. It has been claimed by him that his service Book was all along free from any adverse remark and that the petitioner got all the increments which were due to him in the course of his service, the last being one which was given to the petitioner on the 20th July, 1953, that is, only a short time before the termination of his service. The District Magistrate, it is said, then wrote in his order that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner.

4. It is admitted by the learned Government-Advocate that the order terminating the service of the petitioner on the 28th February, 1954 was passed in pursuance of and in accordance with the aforesaid Government Circular letter dated the 23rd February, 1954. He however, contended that that Government Circular is not in any way hit by Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The controversy between the parties, therefore, substantially centres round this Circular which has been filed along with the petition. The main and important directions that the Circular lays down are the following ;

1. that there should be a further reduction , in the inspectorate staff employed under the Supply Department in the districts ;

2. that all the incumbents in the cadre of District Supply Inspector which certain exceptions should be offered the post of Supply Inspectors in case that is acceptable to them and they should be retained as Supply Inspectors with effect from the 1st March, 1954 in the cadre of Supply Inspectors ;

3. that some posts of Supply Inspectors in the areas specified therein have been decided to be abolished;

4. that provision should be made for the absorption of such Supply Inspectors who are to be retained according to seniority as per details given in the statement enclosed with the Circular ;

5. that the staff enumerated in the statement enclosed with the Circular should be retained in order of seniority on the basis of their service records and for their being political sufferers, members of scheduled tribes and schedule castes and displaced persons even though they are junior in service ;

6. that all the existing posts of the incumbents should be terminated on the 28th February, 1954 and the incumbents should be appointed afresh in their new posts in the Distri