A notice of termination of probation under Rule 55(3) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 must contain specific facts or instances of unsatisfactory service and must give the employee an opportunity to explain any adverse entries against him.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is one Damodar Sinnha who held the post of a Naib Tahsildar since 1937. In 1950 he was selected in due course for the post of Tahsildar through the Public Service commission. He was thereafter appointed by the Board of Revenue in the post of Tahsildar and placed on probation for a period of two years with effect from April 30, 1951. This period expired on 30-4-1953, but on 15th June 1953 he was informed that the probationary period had been extended by one year which carried it to 30-4-1954. During all this period he continued to work as Tahsildar and also earned one increment after one year of service as Tahsildar. In July 1955, nearly 15 months after the expiry of the extended period of probation, he was served with a notice, at the instance of the Land Reforms Commissioner U. P. , to the effect that his record of service as Tahsildar during the period of probation from 30-4-1951 to 30-4-1953 was unsatisfactory and that he had further deteriorated in 1954. By the same notice he was also asked to show cause why his probation should not be terminated and he be reverted to his substantive post of Naib Tahsildar. This notice has not been produced by the petitioner but the learned Standing Counsel has produced for the Courts inspection its copy in the departmental record. It is as follows:

"shri Damodar Sinha, Tahsildar Mahoba, As directed in letter No. 27541/3 TNT 8p/54 dated 28-12-1954 from the Land Reforms Commissioner, U. P. Section 3, Lucknow, I am to ask you that as the record of your service during the period of your probation from 1951 to 1953 though unsatisfactory your probation was extended upto 29-4-1954. Instead of making any improvement you deteriorated further in 1954. It has, therefore, been considered that your probation should be terminated as you failed to give satisfaction as Tahsildar. As required under Rule 55 (3) of the civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules you are hereby apprised of the reasons of the terminating your probation and are also required to submit your explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order through the S. D. O. in triplicate. Please acknowledge receipt of this order. "

( 2 ) IN reply to the above notice the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Land Reforms commissioner pointing out that he had not only passed the requisite departmental examination and wag also allowed to cross efficiency bar but his work too throughout was satisfactory. He further pointed out that he had actually been recommended by the Collector Allahabad for confirmation. Having thus refuted the allegation of inefficiency, he also specifically pointed out that the notice served upon him failed to mention any instance, warning or adverse entry concerning failure of duty by him or pointed to any deterioration in his work, and that in the absence of those particulars he was not in a position to offer any explanation. It does not appear that despite the petitioners asking particulars o charges and adverse entries against him they were ever supplied to him. But In August 1955 his reversion to the post of Naib tahsildar was gazetted. His probation period, too, was terminated. Against the said order terminating his probation and reverting him to the post of Naib Tahsildar, the petitioner then represented to the Land Reforms Commissioner but got no redress, Ultimately he filed the present petition impugning the legality of the order dated 27-8-1955 terminating his probation and reverting him to the post of Naib Tahsildar, Besides asking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said order, he has asked a mandamus also directing the opposite parties, to confirm him as a Tahsildar.

( 3 ) THE grounds urged are that under the rules applicable to his case his period of probation expired, firstly, on 30-4-1953 and, in any case, on 30-4-1954 after which it was not permissible to revert him from the post of Tahsildar. His claim also is