Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.S. Rathor and learned Standing Counsel Shri P.P. Srivastava for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.3.1988 passed by the respondent No. 5 Senior Superintendent of Police, by which the petitioner was removed from his temporary service as a Police Constable. The second prayer of the petitioner is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service and grant him all benefits in accordance with law.

3. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 16.10.86 for the recruitment of Police Constables. At the bottom of the advertisement, a note was appended that the recruitment, which was being made to this advertisement be of a temporary nature and as and when vacancies occur, those persons who are selected would be adjusted. Other conditions imposed are passing of the fitness test and character classification, for which, the selected recruitment was not given to him.

4. The petitioner also appeared and was selected. His name was found at Sr. No. 97 in the select list dated 1.1.87. The petitioner was sent for training and, thereafter, was sent to Meerut at the Reserve Police Line, Meerut. It is the petitioner’s case that he has joined his duties as Police Constable but without any notice or opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was declared to be relieved on account of his alleged failing in the examinations during the training. He was informed by the impugned letter dated 18.3.88 that he was being relieved on account of the fact that he had failed in the training and, therefore, he was being relieved. The petitioner’s contention, therefore, is that his removal was illegal and bad and violative of Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations and in view of this, the petitioner started making representations to the Director General of Police for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner has appended Annexures to the writ petition being Annexure Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all his representations which were made over a period of three years and because the same was not decided, he ultimately filed this writ petition, after a period of three years, claiming relief as stated in the above noted paragraphs. The petitioner has also claimed parity in the writ petition with other recruits who approached this writ Court and whose petitions were allowed in their favour.

5. The State has filed a counter affidavit in which the State has stated that the petitioner was relieved because he had failed in his examinations during the training period. He was permitted to appear in the examination always but he was not successful.

6. Other than the counter affidavit, the State has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit stating that on two occasions, the petitioner failed to pass the training programme and, therefore, he was discharged from the recruit training course by order dated 18.3.88. It is further stated that the petitioner did not even approach this Court for a period of almost four years after the passing of the order dated 18.3.88.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that it is apparent from the advertisement appended to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that the petitioner had applied against the advertisement for temporary recruitment as police constable, which was only to be confirmed as and when there was a vacancy and as and when the candidate had successfully completed the training programme.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in the case of the petitioner, Regulation 541 was not applicable because Regulation 541 only is given to recruits who are recruited against the clear vacancies and not on a temporary basis. Regulation 541 is quoted herein below :

“541.(1) A recruit will be on probation from the date he begins to officiate in a clear vacancy. The period of probation will be