( 1 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted not to resolve any conflict of the decisions, point or points of fact or law. Indeed, the Full Bench is called upon to decide on merits the writ petition of Km. Mamta Jauhari, an erstwhile temporary employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh, serving as District Programme Officer (Woman), wherein legality of the order dated 5th December, 1994, terminating her services, is the subject-matter of challenge.

( 2 ) WRIT petition was presented before the concerned Division Bench on 28th March, 1995. Under the direction of the Bench requisite affidavits were filed by the parties. The petition was heard by the Bench on 3rd July, 1996 and the judgment was reserved.

( 3 ) ON 4th November, 1996 two separate well considered judgments and final orders of the learned Judges constituting the Bench were pronounced, signed and sealed in the open Court.

( 4 ) ONE final order reads thus :

"in the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 5. 12. 1994 as published on 6. 1. 1995 is quashed. The respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Sd. /- Illegible 4. 11. 1996. "

The other final order reads thus :"after considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Khare, we are of the considered view that the termination has been made in accordance with the rules and it is not stigmatory and her services have been terminated in accordance with the Rules. We, therefore, for the reasons recorded above dismiss the writ petition. Sd. /- Illegible 4. 11. 1996. "

Thereafter, the learned Judges passed the following order :"in view of difference of opinion, the papers be placed before the Honble Chief Justice preferably within 24 hours for sending the matter for opinion to a third Judge. Sd. /- Illegible 4. 11. 1996. Sd. /- Illegible 4. 11. 1996. "

Then, the Honble the Chief Justice passed an order dated 19. 11. 1996 referring the matter to a third Judge.

( 5 ) THE matter came up before third Judge on various dates between 28th February, 1997 and 2nd may, 1997 and had to be adjourned for various reasons, recorded on the order-sheet. Eventually, on 14th May, 1997 after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, at length and In detail, following order was passed :

"heard Sri Ashok Khare and Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the parties, at length and in detail. It appears that this petition was heard by a Division Bench on 4th November. 1996. The Honble judges constituting the Bench delivered two different judgments. One proposing to dismiss the writ petition and the other proposing to allow the writ petition. In view of the dissonance, the Honble Judges passed an order directing the papers of the case to be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for sending the matter for opinion to a third judge. On 19th November, 1996, the Honble the Chief Justice passed the following order : referred to Honble D. S. Sinha, J. Sd. /- D. P. M. 19. 11. 1996. "

Learned counsel for the parties concede that instant reference is under Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court, 1952 which reads thus :"procedure when Judges are divided in opinion.--When a case (to which the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure do not apply), is heard by a Division Court composed of two or more Judges and the Judges are divided in opinion as to the decision to be given on any point, such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there shall be a majority. Should the Judges be equally divided they may state the point upon which they differ and each judge shall record his opinion thereon. The case shall then be heard upon that point by one or more of the other Judges as may be nominated by the Chief Justice and the point decided according t