The services of a temporary Government servant, may it be for a fixed period, can be terminated under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

1. - This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated August 29, 1985 passed by the learned singal Judge, by which he dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

2. We many briefly state the facts which have given rise to this appeal. The petitioner-appellant was appointed by means of order Anx. 3 dated May 1, 1985. It was, amongst others, mentioned that he is being appointed temporary (sic) period of six months. By the same order, besides the petitioner appellant, 19 more persons were appointed. Subsequently, it appears that by means of Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985, the appointment order which was issued in favour of the petitioner-appellant was cancelled and his services were terminated under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules'). It is further mentioned therein that he is being given notice from August 17, 1985 and his services shall stand terminated from September 17, 1965. The petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition in this Court on August 26, 1985 seeking to quash the order Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner-appellant submitted Anx. 1 dated July 13, 1981; Anx. 2 dated April 30, 1985 Annx. 3 dated May 1, 1985 and Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985. It may be mentioned that Anx. 1 dated July 13, 1981 is a Circular issued by the State Government and that was for the purpose of making selection of Class IV Servants. A Committee was constituted consisting of Regional Deputy Director, District Ayurvedic Officer and Senior Medical Officer. Annexure 2 is the copy of the letter dated April 30, 1985 for the purpose of selecting Ward Boy. The learned single Judge, by his order dated August 29,1985, after considering the contentions that were raised before him, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal as aforesaid.

3. It may be stated that before, the learned single Judge, the order Anx. 4 relating to termination of the services of the petitioner appellant under Rule 23-A of the Rules was assailed as illegal on the grounds (1) that it is not a speaking order; (2) that no opportunity of hearing was given before terminating the services of the petitioner; and (3) that the petitioner-appellant was selected by a regular Committee for a period of six months, and therefore, the termination could not be made under Rule 23-A of the Rules.

4. It appears from the impugned order that the learned single Judge held that the appointment of the petitioner appellant was purely on temporary basis for a period of six months and, therefore, his services when sought to be terminated by giving one month's notice under Rule 23-A of the Rules, is legal and there cannot be said to be any illegality committed by issuing the termination order. He repelled the contention that in this case, the order should have been a speaking one or that it was necessary to have afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant before passing the order under Rule 23-A of the Rules.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. Having heard them, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal has no merit.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the three arguments that were raised before the learned single Judge, before us. We have considered the order Anx. 3, by which the petitioner-appellant and 19 other persons were appointed temporarily for a period of six months and also the order Anx. 4 dated August 17, 1985. The petitioner-appellant was appointed temporarily for a period of six months, and so his service could be terminated in accordance with Rule 23-A of the Rules and in these circumstances, we agree with the learned single Judge that neither any speaking order was required nor any opportunity was required to be afforded to the petitioner-appellant before terminating his services.

7. As regards the third contention that was raised before the learned single