ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.U. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been appointed by the letter of appointment dated 13th February, 1987 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) as Nalkoop Operator at Tube -well No. 165 in the district of Mainpuri. A perusal of the letter of appointment clearly demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner is purely provisional and temporary with a further rider that it can be terminated at any time without any notice. The letter of appointment further says that in any case, the term of appointment will not be extended beyond three years. It is on the strength of this letter of appointment the petitioner was functioning as Tube -well Operator.
(3.) BY the order dated 25th November, 1991 (Annexure '2' to the writ petition), the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that Tube -well No. 165 on which the petitioner was employed has since been abandoned and is no more functioning. Therefore, the petitioner's service were not required. The termination order also says that the petitioner is being given notice for one month, according to his terms of appointment, and thereafter his services will automatically come to an end. This order was also communicated to the petitioner by the Ziledar of the area concerned.;