ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - Sri Shanker Singh Rawat was appointed Patwari temporary in Patti Talla Chandpur by an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chamoli, dated 14-3-1963. By a subsequent order dated September 9, 1969, the Deputy Commissioner. Chamoli. gave a notice to the petitioner to the effect that his services were no longer required and on that ground terminated his services with immediate effect. He was given one month's pay in lieu of notice. 2. The petitioner has challenged the termination order on the ground that it violated Article 311 of the Constitution. He has also assailed the order on the ground that as respondents Nos. 3 to 58 were juniors to the petitioner and had been retained in service the order violated Article 16 of the Constitution. 3. In the counter affidavit it was stated that the petitioner had a bad service record and he was suspended with effect from 4-7-1966 to 1-12-1966 and this period was directed not to be counted in his service. The contention of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that the services of the petitioner were governed by General Rules regarding termination of services of a temporary Government servant published with notification No. 230/11-B-1953, dated 30-1-1953 and they had been terminated in terms of the conditions of service. Rule 1 provides that the services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. Rule 2 provides that the period of such notice shall be one month whether given by the appointing authority to the Government servant or by Govt, servant to the appointing authority. It also provides that the Government may in lieu of notice pay to the Government servant salary for a month. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not a temporary servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the aforesaid rules were not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the same had been superseded by the U.P. Patwaris Services Rules, 1963 framed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. These rules, however do not contain any provision regarding the termination of services of the temporary Patwari. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that the aforesaid rules were not applicable to the case of the petitioner as the same had been superseded by the U.P. Patwaris Services Rules, 1963 framed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. These rules, however do not contain any provision regarding the termination of services of the temporary Patwari. Rule 24 is to the effect that "Regulation of pay, allowances, leave, pension and other conditions of service except as provided in these rules, the pay, leave, allowances and other conditions of the members of the Service shall be regulated by rules made by the Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution ............". Hence the conditions of service of the petitioner which are not covered by the Patwari Services Rules will continue to be governed by the rules framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution and published with notification dated 30-1-1953 mentioned above. Commissioner being the appointing authority, had thus the right under the rules to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of the notice. The termination order is, therefore, legal and valid. 5. As the order of termination, has been passed under the terms of the conditions of service, it cannot be held to be invalid by virtue of Article 16 of the Constitution. Article 311 of the Constitution is also not attracted as the order is a simple order of termination of service and not one of dismissal or the removal. The impugned order has thus not been shown to suffer from any illegality or want of jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.