Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply to temporary appointments that are terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract.

1. In this case the petitioner Nand Kishore Prasad hag applied to the High Court under Article 236 of the Constitution for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash order No. 1056 of 1955 of Mr. R. N. Roy, General Manager of Bihar Rajya Transport.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a junior clerk on the 27th of March, 1954, and was posted to Gaya, He was discharged from that post later on because he was suspected of being involved In a Police case. The Police, however, submitted a final report and on the 25th of February 1955, the petitioner was reappointed to the post of junior clerk by the order of the General Manager No. 1632, dated the 25th of February, 1955. The order of the General Manager is to the following effect:-

"Office of the Rajya Transport Bihar, Memo No. 1632.

RT Estt. Minis. 74-55.

Patna the 24th February, 1955.

To,

Shree Nand Kishore Prasad

C/o Shri Krishna Ballabh Sahay,

Mohalla Bhawar

Pokhar, Bankipur, Patna 4.

He is reappointed until further orders to the post of Junior Clerk on Rs. 50/- in the scale of Rs. 50-2-70 EB 2-90 plus the usual cost of living allowance sanctioned by Government from time to time. The appointment is purely temporary and terminable without notice and without assigning any reason therefor. He will have to abide by the rules and conditions of service which may be framed from time to time.

He should report for duty, in the Central Office at Anisabad immediately. No jointing T. A. will be allowed.

Sd. Illegible.

For General Manager, 25.2.

There was again a complaint against the conduct of the petitioner and on the 1st of November, 1955, the General Manager discharged him from service on the ground that he behaved rudely with the Divisional Engineer and proved himself to be dishonest by making incorrert entries in the Attendance Register. The contention of the petitioner is that this order of discharge was passed without giving ah opportunity to the petitioner to explain the charges. It was argued that the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution had been violated and the order of discharge dated the 1st of November, 1955, is an illegal order made without jurisdiction.

3 The learned Government pleader stated that Article 311 (2) has no application to this case. It was argued that the petitioner was discharged on the 1st of November, 1955, in terms of the contract of service.

4. We consider that, the submission of the learned Government pleader is well founded. In our opinion Article 311 has no application to this case because the discharge of the petitioner from the post of junior clerk on the 1st of November, 1955, is not tantamount to a dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. This is an ordinary case of a contract being terminated under one of its clauses.

5. According to the contract of service dated the 25th of February, 1955 the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and was "terminable without notice and without assigning any reason therefor". The authorities of the Rajya Transport were, therefore, entitled under the terms of the special contract to terminate, the post of