Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 21st July, 1667, terminating his services on a months notice. The sole question in the ease is whether the petitioner was a temporary employee liable to be discharged on a months notice or he held the post in a substantive status.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a record keeper in November, 1948, in the Sales Tax Department at Bareilly. With effect from 1st October, 1949, he was promoted to the post of note and drafter in the office of the Sales Tax Officer, Bareilly. Both these posts were at that time temporary and the petitioners appointment was also temporary. Then on 14tb/ 19th July, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner appears to have passed an order declaring the petitioners appointment as substantive as record keeper with effect from 4th November, 1948, to 30th September, 1919, and thereafter as note and drafter with effect from 1st October, 1949. The above mentioned order has not been produced but it has been stated that an entry to this effect was made on 1st January, 1955, by the Sales Tax Officer, Agra, in the petitioners service-book.
(3.) At that time the Sales Tax Department W8B temporary. The posts were sanctioned from year to year. The term of the posts came to an end on 31st March, 1953. The petitioners appointment also stood terminated by implication. On 18th May, 1953, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment. The order stated ; "Your appointment which terminated on March 81. 19-53 is hereby extended for a period of one year from April 1, 1953, till March 31, 1954, on a temporary basis on the following terms and conditions." One condition was that the petitioners services could be terminated on one months notice. This order was presumably passed because of the coming into force on January 30, 1953, of the general rules regulating temporary appointments.;