The petitioner herein has questioned the validity of an order passed by the Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Mohanur, terminating his services by Rc. No. 5/E1/83 dated 15.11.1983. The Special Officer advertised certain posts in the Co-operative Sugar Mills including that of Seasonal Lab Chemist. The petitioner duly applied for the same and was called for an interview in and by the letter of the Special Officer dated 9.2.1982. He was interviewed on 18.2.1982 and in and by proceedings No. 15/82/MFG dated 19-2-1982, he and some others were appointed as Seasonal Lab Chemists. In the letter of appointment, the scale of pay was shown at Rs. 405-795. The petitioner was put on probation for one year from the date of joining, with the stipulation that the probation would be liable for extension, if the service of the incumbent was not found to be satisfactory. Thus, according to the petitioner, he was recruited on a permanent basis and given appointment on probation for one year. In a separate proceeding L./83/MFG dated 21.2.1983, the petitioner and two other Seasonal Lab Chemists were declared to have completed satisfactorily their probation. One Velusamy, who also had been appointed along with the petitioner, however, had not been mentioned in the said proceeding and, it seems he completed his probation after some days and, in and by a separate proceeding, he was declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation. All of a sudden, however, according to the petitioner, the Special Officer in and by the proceedings in Rc. No. 5/E1/83 informed the petitioner that his services were terminated for the reason that his appointment was only against the vacancy caused as a result of one P. Subramaniam, a Lab Chemist, undergoing training in National Sugar Institute, Kanpur, who re-joined duty and thus there was no vacancy for the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved through his Union an appeal to the Special Officer as well as the second respondent, the Director of Sugar, Nandanam, Madras, but found no response from any of them. He thereafter moved this Court seeking inter alia a writ in the nature of certiorari and consequential mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the proceedings dated 15.11.1983 in Rc. 5/E1/83 and directing the respondents to reinstate him in service as Lab Chemist and other consequential benefits.

3. The impugned proceeding has been produced which reads as follows:

Rc. No. 5/E1/83

Memo.

Sub: Establishment — Appointment of Seasonal Lab Chemist — Thiru K. Ganesan, Seasonal Lab Chemist — Not qualified in Maths and Excess hand — regarding.

Ref: 1) Minutes of the Committee Meeting that held on 18.2.82 for the selection of Seasonal lab Chemists.

2) This Office Proceedings dated 19.2.82.

3) This office Proceedings dated 21.2.83.

Thiru K. Ganesan was selected as Seasonal Lab Chemist in the proceedings first cited in the vacancy of Thiru P. Subramanian, Lab Chemist who had undergone training in National Sugar Institute, Kanpur. Now Thiru P. Subramaniam has joined on duty. As such there is no vacancy for the continuous service of Thiru K. Ganesan.

Hence he is hereby informed to take this as month notice for the termination of his service from the date of receipt of this memo.”

3 -A. The writ petition was heard for admission and a rule nisi was issued in W.M.P. No. 18234 of 1983 in these terms:

“Interim stay if petitioner had not been already relieved by to-day. and the stay was made absolute on 11.1.1984. posted for hearing before me. On 19.12.1991, Officer stated that the first respondent intended

After an inordinate delay, however, the case was learned counsel for the first respondent/Special to withdraw the impugned order and give to the petitioner continuity of appointment from the date of appointment but without paying for the period he had not worked. On his representation as above, I ordered as follows:

“It is stated by the learned co