U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner, who was a Sachiv in a Co-operative Society, has challenged the order of termination of his services, dated August 17, 1983. As provided, a selection was held in accordance with the relevant Rules and the petitioner was appointed ag Sachiv on a clear vacancy on a substantive post on October 11, 1977 by the District Administrative Committee Since the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment, the probation period of two years as provided in Rule 27 of the relevant Rules was never extended and the petitioner continues regularly in the service since 1977 without any break.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that before the passing of the impugned order of termination referred to above, the petitioner who was a confirmed employee and his services having been approved by the Cadre Authority and the petitioner having been serving since 1977, the petitioner's services could not be dispensed with on one month's notice and one month's pay unless disciplinary proceedings are initiated and petitioner is found guilty and opportunity is afforded to the petitioner.
(3.) In the above writ petition reference of certain cases which are similar to the instant writ petition have been cited. It has been stated in the affidavit, dated May 2, 1988 that the writ petition involving similar question of law i, e. Writ Petition No. 2369 of 1982 (Laxman Nath Kushwaha v Committee of Management and others), was finally allowed and the impugned order was quashed and it was held that tbe termination order was bad and illegal. Another similar Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1982 (Shanti Shankar Agnihotri v. District Administrative Committee and others), has also been allowed finally on the basis of the earlier decision mentioned above. Another similar Writ Petition No. 3148 of 1984, (Ram Autar v. District Administrative Committee), has also been allowed finally on the same ground.;