JUDGMENT

Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated May 8, 1967 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and refusing to quash the order of the appellant's termination of service, dated May, 18, 1966.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that by means of an order dated November 23, 1954 (Annexure I to the writ petition) the appellant was appointed as a temporary judicial Officer at Aligarh. In the aforesaid letter it was specifically mentioned that the appellant's appointment was liable to termination at any time on one month's notice of discharge of either side or one month's pay in lieu of notice by Government in accordance with Government's Notification No. 230/-B-1953 dated January 30, 1953 (Annexure II to the writ petition), a copy whereof was enclosed with the appointment letter. It would be advisable at the outset, to quote the material contents of Annexure II "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of U. P. is pleased to make the following general rule regulating the termination of services of temporary Government servants:

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any existing rules and orders on the subject, the service of a Government servant in temporary service shall he liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either have the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant.

(2) .................................

(3) This rule shall take immediate effect and shall apply to all persons who are appointed hereafter in a civil post in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh and who are under the rule-making control of the Governor, but who do not hold a lien on any permanent Government post.

(4) In this rule, 'temporary service' means officiating and substantive service in a temporary post and officiating service in a permanent post, under the U. P. Government."

3. To our regret we find that the writ petition does not contain precise and chronological narration of facts, which had to he gathered from the record of the case, personal file of the appellant and statements made at the Bar. The Chief standing Counsel did not claim prevailed with regard to the personal file of the appellant maintained in the Secretary at and had placed the same before the learned single Judge. He has acted likewise in this Court It appeals that after being transferred from place to place, the appellant was posted as judicial Officer at Banda till the year 1961. In 1962 he was posted as Judicial Officer Kisia, in the district of Deoria. In the General Election of 1962 Shri Raj Mangal Pandy a Congress committee', was pitched against Shri Genda Singh, a P. S P. candidate, in Padraun East Assembly Constituency of District Deoria, of which the appellant was the returning Officer. Shri Raj Mangal Pandey wanted his name to be written at the top of bigot papers, in order to have the advantage of the mentality of illiterate and unconcerned voters to mirk the name of the card date shown at the top of the ballot papers. But the appellant did not accede to that request as it was contrary to the instructions issued by the" Election Commission, which required the names of candidates to he written in alphabetical order.

4. The election result was declared on 28-2-1962 in which the P. S. P. candidate Shri Genda Singh succeeded. When Sri Raj Mangal Pandey lost the election he put the entire blame for his defeat on the appellant because of his refusal to accede to the above request of Shri Raj Mangal Pander. It is said that Shri Raj Mangal Pandey made a complaint to the above effect to the Chief Minister, Shri C. B. Gupta when he visited Padrauna after the election. The result was that immediately on his return to Lucknow Shri C. B Gupta made a confidential report to the Chief Secretary on 9-4 1962 that the appellant had openly helped th