The main legal point established is that continuous service, training obtained during consolidation, and lack of notice or opportunity prior to termination can impact the application of U. P. Temporary Employees Service Rules, 1975 and entitle the employee to reinstatement.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 8. 6. 1995 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 4 terminating the service of the petitioner and treating the petitioner as untrained and further prayer in the writ petition is to regularize the services of the petitioner and treat and petitioner as a trained Lekhpal.

( 2 ) THE facts arising out the present writ petition are that the petitioner has obtained training from the Consolidation Department, Gorakhpur where he was serving as Lekhpal and after having training the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal on 1. 2. 1979 at Maharajganj, Tehsil, District gorakhpur. From the date of his appointment the petitioner has been continuously working to the satisfaction of the higher authorities. The Government has issued an order dated 13th April, 1977 and the notification directing to treat those persons to be trained Lakhpals those who have completed training from the Consolidation Department. Thereafter again a scheme of the government was issued known as Job Million Yojna under which the Lakhpals, who have obtained training from the Consolidation Department, were asked to be regularized in the revenue Department, Respondent No. 1 issued a latter dated 24. 7. 1984 asking the names of the consolidation trained Lekhpals, who had worked for a period of more than three years under which the name of the petitioner and others were sent for regularization. A copy of the same has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Another order was issued by the government on 9. 12. 1982 under the direction to the effect that those untrained Lekhpals, who were appointed prior to 8. 5. 1980, their services may not be terminated. Though the petitioner is continuously working as Lekhpal from the date of his appointment, even then while preparing the seniority list of the Lekhpals, who were working, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned and numbers of junior Lekhpals were mentioned in the list. Petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 1 on 30. 10. 1994 and prior to that the petitioner has also submitted the representations on 18. 5. 1992 and 1. 2. 1994 with a prayer to treat the petitioner as trained Lekhpal as the petitioner has already obtained the training from the Consolidation department under the scheme of half Million Job Yojna. On the representation of the petitioner and others, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not passed any order although under the same and similar circumstances, the Lekhpal, who have obtained training from the Consolidation department and were working in district Gorakhpur, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur has recommended to the respondent No. 1 to allow them and to treat the petitioner as well as other lekhpals to be the trained Lekhpals. A copy of the recommendation of the District Magistrate gorakhpur has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Since the petitioner and other lekhpals who were trained from the Consolidation Department repeatedly asked for regularization and also for petitioner, the petitioner to be trained Lekhpal and with request for including the name in their seniority list maintained by the department, but instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 11. 4. 1995 asking the respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner and others under the U. P. Temporary Employees Service Rules, 1975, giving one months notice or salary in lieu thereof, in spite of the fact that in view of the government orders, the petitioner has become permanent and trained Lekhpal. In pursuance of the order dated 11. 4. 1995, passed by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 4 has issued an order of termination dated 8. 6. 1995 purported to be issued under U. P. Temporary Employees Service Rules, 1975 treating the petitioner as a temporary employee. A copy of the said