The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employees can be terminated under the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, and the termination decision should not be considered punitive if it does not violate the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) HEARD the petitioner, who has appeared in person, Shri Sudhir Agarwal the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

( 2 ) PERUSED the record.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, who had been appointed on the post of temporary Munsif, on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, made on the basis of the competitive examination held in the year 1993, on 22. 7. 1985 has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27. 4. 1998 passed by the state Government terminating her services exercising the jurisdiction contemplated under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, indicating that the services of the petitioner were no longer required.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the order of appointment referred to hereinabove, the petitioner had taken over charge as Munsif at Faizabad on 5. 12. 1985. The character roll entries awarded to the petitioner during the period elapsing between the date of her appointment and the date of termination of service which have been referred to in detail in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, in opposition to the writ petition indicate that her work, performance and conduct had remained far from satisfactory. Even doubt had been raised against her integrity. She was subjected to various departmental enquiries which could not be completed on account of her non-co-operation and ultimately on being apprised of the situation, the Administrative committee passed a resolution referring the matter for consideration of the Full Court recommending the termination of her services under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The Full Court in its meeting held on 7. 3. 1998, after considering the recommendation of the Administrative Committee made in its meeting held on 24. 10. 1997 and observing that the officer was facing 3 departmental enquiries on different charges and even though the proceedings had been initiated against her long before, they could not be concluded for different reasons and were pending at different stages, on a careful consideration of the relevant aspect of the matter decided to abandon/drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and to terminate her services under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

( 6 ) IT was thereafter that the State Government passed the impugned order which is being challenged in the present proceedings.

( 7 ) IT may be noticed that the Full Court in its resolution dated 7. 3. 1998 had come to the conclusion that from the scrutiny of the record it was apparent that the petitioner had been holding the post on temporary basis and her services were terminable under the provisions of the uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. It may also be noticed that by mistake pursuant to the Government order dated 7. 2. 1990, for the grant of senior pay scale to the officers of U. P. Nayayik Sewa Niyamavali, 1951, who had completed regular and satisfactory service of 5 years, the petitioner was also granted senior pay scale along with 215 officers of U. P. Nayayik Sewa but on the mistake having been brought to the notice of the Court it was rectified and the Courts notification dated 29. 9. 1992 was modified.

( 8 ) THE petitioner has strenuously urged that by the date of the issuance of the impugned order terminating her services, she had to her credit about 13 years of service and since she had been appointed under the provisions contained in U. P. Nayayik Sewa Niyamavali, 1951, her appointment could only be taken to be an appointment as contem