JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Dharmendra Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Junior Clerk in the Bhagirath Gramin Bank, District Sitapur.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give all the service benefits which have been given to the persons, junior to the petitioner.

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from services, dated 11.2.1992 and 8.9.1992 respectively, dismissing the service of the petitioner, contained in Annexure Nos.6 and 9 to the writ petition.

(d) issue or pass any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which may be deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case.

(e) allow the writ petition with costs.”

3. Facts of the case are that on 28.12.1979 the petitioner was appointed for a period of thirty days for term appointment and thereafter he was appointed for sixty days and 90 days and the appointment letters to the said effect were issued for the said term. The appointment letters were issued to the petitioner from time to time in this regard. Thereafter, the interview of the petitioner was held on 10.1.1983 at 11.00 a.m. and the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 10.2.1983 in the pay scale of Rs.354-550 plus dearness allowance and he was placed on probation for a period of twelve months.

One Shri D.S. Mishra who was the Manager of the Branch of the Bank in which the petitioner was working as a Junior Clerk developed mala-fide intention towards the petitioner and as the petitioner, who was working under him, he harassed the petitioner a good number of time in different ways and also alleged that the petitioner is responsible for the embezzlement of the alleged amount, while the petitioner had no knowledge of time.

The respondents did not give any show cause notice and the petitioner was also not given copy of the finding report of the enquiry report before passing the dismissal order and the petitioner was not also afforded any adequate opportunity prior to the issuance of the order dated 11.2.1991 dismissing the petitioner from his services. There is specific mention in the Bhagirath Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation, 1980 that these regulations are not applicable to the employees who have been appointed temporarily or to the persons recruited on special contract.

The petitioner also submitted his appeal on dated 25.3.1991 against the said dismissal order of the petitioner from service, which has also been passed without passing any reasoned and speaking order on 8.9.1982.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, in most illegal arbitrary and discriminatory manner, dismissed the petitioner from services, which is in violation of the provisions, contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Staff Service Regulation, 1980 could not made available for application to the petitioner who was employed temporarily or on special contract.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is specific provision under Staff Service Regulation, 1980 as not to apply such regulations on the employees, who have been employed temporarily on daily wages or recruited on special contract.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is specific provision under Staff Service Regulation, 1980 as not to apply such regulations on the employees who have been employed temporarily on daily wages or recruited on