ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - 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. 4. The petitioners claim, that by reason of the order dated 14th July, 1952, he held the post in a substantive capacity - a status which continued till the impugned order terminating his services was passed on 21-7-1967 cannot be accepted. The substantive nature of the petitioners appointment continued only till 1st March, 1953. With effect from 1st April, 1953, the petitioners original appointment itself came to an end. The substantive nature of the petitioners appointment continued only till 1st March, 1953. With effect from 1st April, 1953, the petitioners original appointment itself came to an end. He was given a fresh appointment which specifically had a condition of service, that his services were terminable on one months notice. That destroyed the substantive nature of his earlier appointment. When the order dated 18th May, 1953, was passed the petitioner held the post purely as a temporary employee. On 22nd May, 1956, the Government by a general order made the pest held by the petitioner permanent. Thus, the petitioner became the holder of a permanent post, but in a temporary capacity. In view of the definition of the words "temporary service" in the rules relating to temporary Government servants of 1953 "officiating service" in a permanent post was also temporary service, just as officiating or temporary service on a temporary post was temporary service. The word "officiating" has been used in this rule in contradiction to the word "substantive" and not in contradistinction with the word "temporary". The word "officiating" has been used in sub.rule (4) while defining "temporary service". Within the meaning of that rule a person occupying a permanent post on a temporary basis would be in temporary service. The order dated 18th May 1953, specifically appointed the petitioner on a temporary basis. So, even though the post was subsequently made permanent the petitioners status thereon continued as temporary. Nothing happened subsequently to change the petitioners status. 5. This view is in line with the decision of a Division Beech of this Court in Special Appeal No. 298 of 1960, P/. 13-2.1965 (All). There if was held that where an employee held a temporary post in a substantive capacity and subsequently the post was made permanent, the employee would be deemed to continue to hold the post in a substantive capacity. Here; may be the employee initially held the post in a substantive capacity, but that came to an end. He was given a fresh appointment temporarily. Subsequently the post was converted into a permanent one. His status was not changed. He would be deemed to continue on his original status, namely temporary. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that in 1959 the petitioner was reduced in rank from the post of noter and drafter to that of the routine clerk. Subsequently the post was converted into a permanent one. His status was not changed. He would be deemed to continue on his original status, namely temporary. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that in 1959 the petitioner was reduced in rank from the post of noter and drafter to that of the routine clerk. That would not have been possible had he been considered to be a temporary employee. The submission is met by noticing that originally in November 1948 the petitioner was appointed as record keeper temporarily and in October, 1949 he was promoted as noter and drafter temporarily. There appears no bar in promoting or reducing in rank a temporary employee from one post to another. The fact that the petitioner was reduced in rank would not confer a status on him other than that he held when he was reduced in rank. In my opinion the petitioner was rightly held by the Department as temporary. His services ware liable to be terminated on one months notice. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. 7. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.