The petitioner, at all material times, was employed as a Patwari in tahsil Kawardha of District Durg. The services of the petitioner were temporary. He was served with one month's notice (Annexure R-2), dated 16-8-1971. Thereafter, by an order dated 9-9-1971 (Annexure R-1), the petitioner's services were terminated.

The petitioner had been dismissed from the Government service earlier while holding the post of a Mal Chaprasi.

Held : Under section 104 of the Code, the Collector has been designated the person who shall appoint a Patwari. Under section 22 of the Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer exercised such powers of a Collector as the State Government by notification directed. By Notification No 11429-CR-635VII N-2 published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 9-10-1959 and notification No. 13691-CR-770-VII-N (Rules), published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 1-10-1960, the State Government in exercise of the powers under section 22 of the Code directed all the Sub-Divisional Officers to exercise powers of a Collector under sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Code. There is, therefore, no contention in the submission that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to remove the petitioner from service.

Since the services of the petitioner were purely temporary, he had no right to the post and could be removed from the service. Under rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, the services of a temporary Government servant were liable to termination at any time by notice in writing to the Government servant. The notice period is required to be one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government servant and the Government.

On 26-7-1971, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed that the petitioner be given one month's notice and he should be removed from service. It is in pursuance of such orders that the Tahsildar has sent the notice of which reference is made in the order of termination.

In the return filed the position is not disputed that the petitioner was dismissed' from the Government service by the order of Tahsildar dated 18-2-1959 when he was serving as a peon. This position was not refuted by the petitioner any time before also. Under rule 10 (ix) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the dismissal of a person from service ordinarily acts as a bar for subsequent appointment. The petitioner would not have been appointed as a Patwari if his previous dismissal was known to the authorities. The petitioner was usurping a post to which he would not be appointed if full facts were known at the time of appointment. Now, the order of dismissal does not say anything which was not true and which is not refuted by the petitioner. Under the Madhya Pradesh and Record Manual, Vol.1, the Government gave certain instructions regarding the appointment and qualifications of a patwari and it was emphasised that a Patwari should not be of a bad character. A person who was dismissed for dereliction of duties as a peon could not be appointed as a patwari. His appointment has, therefore, been wrongly made and what the Sub-Divisional Officer was seeking to do by the impugned order was to rectify his earlier mistake in such a situation, we do not think that we would exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect a wholly undeserving person. We need not decide the question whether the petitioner's termination was validly made or not.

Petition dismissed.