( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. Dwivedi, petitioner in person and Sri R. K. Ojha, Advocate, learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel at the very outset stated that Respondent No. 1 is a proforma respondent - hence respondent No. 1 has no interest in the Us and no Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) A Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Petitioner in reply, has filed Rejoinder Affidavit. It may be noted that a Supplementary Affidavit, copy of which was served on the learned Counsel for contesting respondents on 21. 8. 2000, is on record (filed in Court on 22. 5. 2001 ). Contesting respondents have not filed heir reply (supplementary Counter- Affidavit) to rebut the facts mentioned therein.

( 4 ) ALONG with Supplementary Affidavit petitioner has filed copy of U. P. Co operative Spinning mills (Centralized) Service Rules, 1993. Para 3 of the Supplementary Affidavit is the only relevant paragraph wherein the petitioner contended hat services of the petitioner could not be made labelled as con