( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue and complete his training as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable "through eligibility test, physical efficiency test, written test and interview" held at Bhopal from 10-4-2000 to 11-4-2000. He was appointed as a Constable by order dated 10-6-2000 (Annexure P-2) by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was asked to join at CISF Recruitment Training Centre, Badwaha, District Khargone on 18-6-2000 for training for 11 months. The petitioner submitted his joining report in the training centre on 18-6-2000. He was not permitted to continue his training from 28-6-2000. No written order was passed cancelling his appointment. The petitioner was not given anything in writing disclosing the reasons for discontinuance of his training.

( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that he was duly selected and he passed the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) at Bhopal. No notice was given to him at the Training Centre at Badwaha that he is to be re-tested for PET. As his appointment order has not been cancelled he has a right to continue on the post on which he had been duly appointed. 3. The case of the respondents is that there were complaints of "manipulation and mal-practice" in the selection process held at Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner and other selected candidates were "re-tested" for PET. The petitioner could not pass this "re-test". He was orally informed that he would not be permitted to continue the training. It is stated that the petitioner failed in the "re-test of one mile race". According to the respondents, all the candidates "were informed orally in a common gathering about the nature of re-test well in advance before the re-test was carried out".

( 4. ) THE point for decision is whether the action of the respondents in passing the aforesaid order orally is just, fair and reasonable.

( 5. ) IT is an admitted fact that the appointment order dated 10-6-2000 was issued by the competent authority after a detailed selection process in which "eligibility test", "physical efficiency test", "written test", "interview" and "medical examination" were conducted. According to the respondents there were complaints of "manipulation and mal-practice" in this selection. But nothing has been brought on record to show how this selection process was tainted. It is difficult to comprehend how there could be an oral order terminating the services of the petitioner. In case the petitioner was not found fit on "re-test" the minimum that was expected of the officers of the Central Industrial Security Force was to pass a written order terminating the services of the petitioner. An oral order terminating the services after a written appointment order is unheard of. There cannot be "hire and fire" in public employment. The respondents have not passed any written order terminating the services of the petitioner. It was necessary to disclose the reasons to the petitioner for termination of his services by a written order. An oral order is of no legal value.

( 6. ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he had duly passed the physical efficiency test in the selection at Bhopal. He was never informed at Badwaha that he is to be re-tested in one mile race. According to him he was required to run in a routine manner as part of physical exercise and during such exercise his performance in physical efficiency test could not be tested. According to him, it was necessary to inform him that earlier physical efficiency test is said to be suffering from "manipulation and mal-practice" and therefore, he is to be re-tested. That would have given a warning to the petitioner to give his best performance in the re-test. This information is also said to have been given by the officers of the CISF orally. It was expected to