ORDER

K.N. Singh, J. - Gauri Shanker Tyagi filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the State Government dated 10th November, 1970, retiring him compulsorily from service.

2. The petitioner joined the U. P. Fire Service in the year 1945 as Fire Station Officer. In 1952, the petitioner was awarded associate membership of the Technological Institute of Great Britain on completion of one year's study course. After selection by the U. P. Public Service Commission in 1952, he was appointed as Chief Fire Officer, on 9-7-1953, he was confirmed and made permanent on the post of Chief Fire Officer. The petitioner was posted at different important stations in the State including Allahabad, Lucknow, Kanpur and Varanasi. In 1968, the petitioner was allowed to cross his final Efficiency Bar at the stage of Rupees 750/- with effect from 9th September, 1967, while he was posted at Kanpur. The petitioner was a candidate for a newly created post of State Fire Officer selection to which was to be held through the Public Service Commission. Interview for the same was scheduled to take place on 30th November, 1970, but before that date the State Government passed the impugned order on 10th November, 1970, retiring the petitioner from service in exercise of the power vested in it by Note appended to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations, dispensing with the petitioner's service with immediate effect. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order on a number of grounds.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the provisions of Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations did not apply to the petitioner as the petitioner's service conditions were regulated by the U. P. Fire Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1945 and not by the Civil Service Regulations. Since there was no provision for compulsory retirement in the U. P. Fire Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules, which, according to the learned counsel, were special rules regulating conditions of service of the petitioners, he could not be retired from service prematurely under Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations. It is true that the petitioner was recruited to Government service under the provisions of the U. P. Fire Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1945, but those Rules are not exhaustive. Those rules do not contain any provision for gratuity, pension or age of superannuation. The rules generally make provision for recruitment and lay down general conditions of service. Fundamental Rule 56 prescribes the age of superannuation which applies to all Government servants holding civil employment under the State. Similarly, the rules framed by the Governor regulating the terms and conditions for grant of gratuity and pension and for the termination of service apply to all Government servants except those who are specially excluded. The Governor is free to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service which may include the terms and conditions for the grant of pension, retirement, and for premature termination of services. Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations was framed by the Governor of the then United Provinces under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been asserted that Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations applies to the petitioner and his pension was regulated by the provisions contained in the Civil Service Regulations. It has further been asserted on behalf of the State in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was holding the post of Chief Fire Officer on the date his services were terminated and the U. P. Fire Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules did not apply to him as the appointment and conditions of service of Chief Fire Officers were not regulated by the said rules. The petit