A confirmed employee with a lien on their post under Fundamental Rule 12-A is not subject to the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and their services cannot be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Rules.

V. P. Gupta, J.—The appellant in this appeal has challenged the order, dated 7th May, 1973, passed by his Lordship the Honble Chief Justice in the C. W. P. No. 145 of 1971, by which the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a teacher against an additional post in the year 1960 on purely temporary basis, vide order, dated 8th June, 1960 (Annexure A). The appointment of the appellant was liable to be terminated on 24 hours notice. Afterwards the appellant had some training as a Language Teacher and was appointed as a Language Teacher in the year 1964. In the year 1970, the appellant was serving as a Language Teacher in the Government High School, Saigaloo, District Mandi, and his services were terminated by order, dated 29th July, 1970, under rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The appellant filed an appeal, but the same was also rejected.

3. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court and alleged that he was a Government servant and that the termination of his service could not be effected by a mere notice because he was a confirmed Government servant and as such was a permanent employee of the Government. It was further alleged that the termination of the appellants service is by way of punishment, and as the appellant has not been given any opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order of termination of service, therefore, the said order is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The appellant also alleged that he was senior to certain other persons and as such his service should not have been terminated by ignoring his claims.

4. The Honble R. S. Pathak, Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) dismissed the writ petition of the appellant by his order, dated 7th May, 1973 after repelling all the contentions raised by the appellant.

5. In this appeal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the order, dated 29th July, 1970 by which his services have been terminated and has also contended that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 7th May, 1973, is liable to be set aside.

6. We have heard Shri A. K. Goel learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H. K. Paul Assistant to the Advocate General for the State, and have also perused the records.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the services of the appellant could not be terminated by order, dated 29th July, 1970, because the appellant was a confirmed Government employee and held the status of a permanent employee. The learned counsel referred to Annexure B-l, appended to the writ petition, and contended that in Annexure B-l, which is the final seniority list of S. Vs. and L. Ts., as it stood on 1st November, 1965, the appellant is shown to have been appointed for the first time on 5th June, 1960, and was confirmed in that grade from 1st November, 1966. This document, Annexure B-l, clearly mentions that in the final seniority list, the appellant was a confirmed teacher with effect from 1st November, 1966.

8. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the services of the appellant can be terminated under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shortly called to Rules of 1965) or not.

9. The Honble Single Judge in his order, dated 7th May, 1973 has observed as follows : "The first ground raised by the petitioner is that that he was a permanent Government servant and his services could not be terminated by a mere notice. It was pointed out that the seniority list of teachers shows the name of the petitioner, and Annexure B-l to the rejoinder affidavit mentions that the petitioner was a confirmed Government servant. In my opinion, neither of the two facts establishes that the petitioner is a permanent Government servant. Seniority can be maintained between temporary Government servants, and a temporary G