JUDGMENT 1. This Rule is directed against the order of termination of service of the petitioner, who used to serve the south Eastern Railway. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner holding the degree of M. B. B. S. He was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon, Grade II, in the scale of pay Rs. 100-8-140-10-170-E. B.-10-300/- with a starting salary of Rs. 150/ -. The appointment was temporary appointment and two of the conditions of appointment were: Condition 2. "all appointments will be made on probation for one/two years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " condition 3. "it must be clearly understood that the appointment is terminable on 14 days' notice on either side except that no such notice is required if the termination of service is due to the expiry of the sanction to the post you hold or on return to duty of the absentee in whose place you may be engaged, in such case your service will automatically terminate from the date of expiry of the sanction or from the date the former resumes his duty as the case may be. Also no such notice will be required if the termination of service is due to your mental or physical incapacity or to your removal or dismissal as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provision of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the constitution of India. " On the aforesaid terms and conditions the petitioner joined the service sometime in the month of October, 1955. While serving in that post, the petitioner appeared at a departmental examination and passed. As a result of his performance in the examination, he was approved for being placed in the panel of Assistant Surgeons, Grade I, in the pay-scale of Rs. 260500/ -. After the selection, the petitioner was transferred to raipur as an Assistant Surgeon, Grade I, sometime in June, 1957. 3. The petitioner alleges that the railway administration received adverse police report against him for being associated with the Communist Party and their activities. The petitioner further alleges that dissatisfied with his political association, the railway administration terminated his services by a letter, dated July 17, 1957, with effect from July 20, 1957. 3. The petitioner alleges that the railway administration received adverse police report against him for being associated with the Communist Party and their activities. The petitioner further alleges that dissatisfied with his political association, the railway administration terminated his services by a letter, dated July 17, 1957, with effect from July 20, 1957. I set out herein below a material extract from the said letter: "as your services are no longer required by the Administration please note that in terms of para 3 of the letter of temporary appointment bearing No. E]86, dated 9-9-55 and the service conditions, your services are hereby terminated with effect from the afternoon of 20-7-57. You will be paid 14 days' pay in lieu of notice. Please let me know how and where your settlement dues are to be paid. You will please hand over to the District Engineer (Doubling), Raipur, charge of Railway property, if any, in your possession. " 4. According to the petitioner the termination was merely a cloak and the railway administration, in fact, dismissed him without taking recourse to the procedure laid down for disciplinary action. Aggrieved by the order of his termination of service, the petitioner moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained this Rule. Mr. Noni Coomar Chakravarty, learned advocate for the petitioner, argued a single point for my consideration. He contended that the petitioner was originally appointed as a temporary Assistant Surgeon, grade II, on probation for two years. Condition 3, hereinbefore quoted, was a condition which was attached to that appointment only. The condition did not pursue the petitioner after his promotion to Grade I, as a result of his passing the departmental examination. As a corollary, Mr. Chakravarty argued, there being no condition of termination of service attached to the post to which the petitioner was promoted, his services could not be terminated in the manner done. 5. The argument advanced by Mr. Chakravarty is attractive but has r. o substance in it. 6. A civil servant who continues in service after the expiry of his probationary period without being confirmed, cannot claim a status other than that of a probationer. 5. The argument advanced by Mr. Chakravarty is attractive but has r. o substance in it. 6. A civil servant who continues in service after the expiry of his probationary period without being confirmed, cannot claim a status other than that of a probationer. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was confirmed at any stage, either while serving as an Assistant Surgeon, Grade II, or while promoted to the post of Assistant Surgeon, Grade I. I have, therefore, to hold that his probationary period never came to an end and he was probationer in a temporary post governed by the conditions of his appointment set out hereinbefore. Now the service of a person in a temporary or a probationary appointment can be terminated either under the service contract or under the service conditions. As an authority for the proposition I need only refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. L, Dhingra v. Union of India (1958 S. C. A. 37. The same was the view expressed by this Court in Kissen Proshad v. Union of India (64 C. W. N. 273. It is not the case of the petitioner that if the conditions of appointment as in clause 3, quoted above, pursued him even in the promoted post, then even the termination must be held to be illegal. The contention which was emphasised before me was that condition 3 was not attached to the post to which the petitioner was promoted. I do not find any substance in this argument. The conditions of his appointment were throughout the same, despite the promotion the petitioner obtained as a result of the examination. 7. That being so I find no substance in the rule. The Rule is accordingly discharged without any order as to costs.