The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of an employee's services must adhere to the prescribed procedures, especially when the employee is appointed on a permanent basis.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record. By means of this petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termination dated 4. 12. 1985 contained in Annexure-1. Prayer for a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the post of Branch Manager of respondent No. 1 has also been made.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant salesman on temporary basis vide appointment letter dated 5. 6. 1996. The order of appointment is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which provides that the service of the petitioner are purely temporary and were liable to be terminated at any time. After his appointment, the petitioner was permitted to continue for a period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioner and other candidates had to appear before the selection committee which was constituted for making permanent appointments of the posts in question. The selection committee selected the petitioner and three other candidates for appointment on 29. 10. 1979. After the petitioner was selected, the appointment letter which is contained in Annexure-3 was issued to the petitioner, on the basis of which he continued to work on the said post and to discharge his duties in permanent capacity. All of a sudden, the order dated 4. 13. 1985 was passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner simply saying that the services of the petitioner were no more required, therefore, they were terminated. Hence the present petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner having been appointed in permanent capacity, his services could not be terminated except in accordance with law. The order of termination was passed in violation of Article 331 of the Constitution of India as well as Regulation no. 61 of the Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Sewa Niyam. 1976, for short, the Rules. It was also urged that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard in any manner before the impugned order was passed, therefore, the impugned order of termination was liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the writ petition as framed and filed was legally not maintainable because the lakhimpur Central Consumers Co-operative stores Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri. respondent No. 1, does not come within the definition of the State as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, if so advised, could seek remedy elsewhere. The writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It was also urged that the petitioner was a temporary employee as he was not appointed on probation, therefore, his services were rightly terminated.

( 5 ) I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) A joint reading of Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis but was subsequently selected for appointment by duly constituted Selection Committee and appointed on permanent basis on the post in question. The submission made by learned counsel for respondents, to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted. The petitioner admittedly had to face the selection committee. The selection committee on 29. 10. 1979 selected the petitioner and three other candidates for permanent appointment on the posts in question. Since, they were already working, therefore, they were permitted to continue. The service of the petitioner, therefore, could not be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the law. Legally, it was not