Bhchawat, J. - (1.) The appellant was a temporary Civil Judge in Madhya Pradesh. On March 14, 1961 an order was issued in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh State that the appellant "is appointed temporarily, until further orders, as Civil Judge". Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 provided:-"12 (a). Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the government and the temporary government servant, the service of a temporary government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant: Provided that the services of any such government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period; Provided further that the payment of allowance shall be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (b) The periods of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government and the Government servant".
(2.) On March 25, 1964 an order was issued by and in the name of the Government terminating the appellant's services. The order stated:- "The service of Shri Ram Gopal Chaturvedi temporary Civil Judge, Waidhan, are terminated with effect from the 1st June 1960, forenoon". The appellant filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court for quashing the order dated March 25, 1964. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition. It held that the impugned order was not by way of punishment and that the appellant's services were liable to be terminated under the aforesaid rule 12 on one month's notice. The appellant has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave.
(3.) The appellant was a temporary government servant and was not in quasi-permanent service. His services could be terminated on one month's notice under Rule 12. There was no provision in the order of appointment or in any agreement that his services could not be so terminated.;