Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.--1. The petitioner in this petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks a direction for the quashing of the order contained in Annex. P-7, of his removal from the post of the L.D.C. by respondent, the employer, after he had served the respondent for about 5 years.

2. The facts may be shortly described: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Time Keeper on ad hoc basis by the respondent vide order Annexure P-1 dated 21.6.1985. The petitioner under different orders passed from time to time, was allowed to work in different capacities such as Telephone Operator of PBX and was also posted for some time in Library Section, as clerk.

3. On 4.4.88, the petitioner was posted as L.D.C. on a salary of Rs. 785/- per month vide Annexure P-3. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time under different orders. But, the petitoner's service was ordered to be terminated by order dated 5.7.90 Annexure P-7. The petitioner earlier to his termination had represented to the respondent under Annexure P-8, on 18.5.90 for his regularisation in service as L.D.C.

4. The petitioner's counsel, Shri Arun Mishra, contended forcefully that the representation made by the petitioner for his regularisation resulted in the termination of his service. For the regularisation the reliance was placed on a Government circular Annexure P-9 issued in the matter of regularisation of temporary and contingency employees of class III and IV. It was contended that the petitioner's performance in service was very good and he was entitled to be regularised, but instead his service was terminated. It was contended that the petitioner having completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, could not be removed from service by the respondent without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (for short the' Act' hereinafter).

5. A further ground was raised by the petitioner's counsel that an employee, L.D.C. much junior to the petitioner named Vinod Swaroop Chaurasia was retained, whereas the service of the petitioner was terminated. It was as such alleged that in the matter of the petitioner, the respondent had applied the double standard and the petitioner was discriminated against and the action of the respondent fell foul of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. The respondent's counsel, Shri R.D. Jain, repelled the contentions of the petitioner with equal force. It was submitted by him that the petitioner was not validly appointed on the post. The other incumbent V.S. Chaursiya was appointed on a different post and that there was neither any violation of Articles 14 and 21 or of section 25F of the Act, as the Industrial Disputes Act itself was not applicable to the respondent, being educational institution.

7. Examining the contentions raised by both the parties and on the perusal of Annexure P-12, one fact is amply borne out that the other retained incumbent V.S. Chaursiya is holding the post of the L.D.C. and was posted in the Consultancy Centre of the respondent. The reply submitted by respondent in this regard is conspicuously vague. V.S. Chaurasiya is admittedly, junior to the petitioner and respondent had discriminated the petitioner by terminating his service and by retaining a junior employee as clerk of lower division. The argument advanced by the respondent that the principle last come first go was not applicable to the instant case, but such contention is without any support of law or the documents and, therefore, does not appear to have any substance. The very fact that the petitioner served the respondent as L.D.C. for more than 4 years, is indicative of the fact that there was the requirement of L.D.C. and there appears much force in the petitioner's contention that he was discriminated against, and that his representation for regularisation came as a main cause for his removal from service. The petitioner had made representation Annex. P-8 on 18.5.90 and hi