The central legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a permanent State Government employee cannot be justified by invoking the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

S. Rafat Alam, J.—In the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the office order dated 6.11.1995 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Farenda, District Maharajganj whereby their services have been terminated under the provisions of the U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

2. Heard Shri Mool Bihari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. S. Pipersenia, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioners claim to have been appointed substantively as Seasonal Amins w.e.f. 1.1.1976 in the district of Gorakhpur as per procedure prescribed under the law. It has further been stated in the writ petition that the department prepared and submitted the names of Seasonal Amins, according to their seniority, for appointment on regular basis. Since the petitioners were senior most Seasonal Amins, their names were included, as per their seniority, for appointment on regular basis. It further appears that, as per seniority in the selection list, the petitioners were given ad hoc appointment against eight vacant posts of Collection Amins on the recommendation of Tehsildars dated 9.2.1990 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/appointing authority vide order dated 9.2.1990, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, their services were terminated vide order dated 31.3.1990 by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj. Aggrieved the petitioners challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10010 of 1990 wherein by an interim order, the order of termination was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. It has been stated in the writ petition that the above order of stay is still in operation and has not been vacated, nor the respondents have filed any counter-affidavit. Since the petitioners were continuously working against the

permanent posts there services were made confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/appointing authority vide order dated 13.3.1991, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It further appears that a consolidated list of permanent/regular Collection Amins was published on 15.6.1993 inviting objections from the Collection Amins pursuant to which several Collection Amins filed their objections challenging their placement in the seniority list. A committee under the Presidentship of the District Magistrate was, therefore, constituted for the disposal of objections. The committee thereafter finalised the seniority list of Collection Amins working in the district and the same was published in the month of December, 1993, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, wherein petitioner No. 1 is shown at serial No. 110, petitioner No. 2 is shown at serial No. 113, petitioner No. 3 is shown at serial No. 112, petitioner No. 4 is shown at serial No. 107, petitioner No. 5 is shown at serial No. 109, petitioner No. 6 is shown at serial No. 111 and petitioner No. 7 is shown at serial No. 108. However, by the impugned order the respondents by invoking the provisions of the Rules terminated their services by giving one month’s notice.

4. Shri Mool Bihari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the petitioners having been regularised against the substantive vacancies, their services cannot be terminated by invoking the provisions of the Rules and, therefore, the order is arbitrary apart from being illegal. It is also submitted that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 15.5.2001 rendered in the case of Shri Gulam Hussain v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6537 of 1995, wherein learned single Judge has quashed the order of termination. It has further been pointed out that in the final seniority list of Collection Amins published in