By the Court—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition of the appellant finally.

3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the appellant was initially engaged on muster roll in the Irrigation Department in the year 1980. By an order dated 31.8.1987, the appellant along with two other persons were taken in work-charge establishment against the vacant posts. The order dated 31.8.1987 stated that the said engagement was purely temporary and subsequently vide order dated 18.12.1987 order dated 31.8.1987 was cancelled. The said order was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order cancelling his appointment was unreasoned and further in the counter affidavit also no reasons were given by the respondents for cancelling the said appointment. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition observing that “in the absence of any reason recorded in the order of termination it will not be justified to iss