JUDGMENT Gopi Nath, J. - The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges orders of termination of services passed against the petitioners. One order is annexure III to the writ petition, other orders. It is stated, have been passed in similar terms, but their copies have not been Tiled. 2. The petitioners were appointed to the posts of Junior Scientific Assistants Grade 51 in the establishment of respondent No. I in the year, 1972. The appointment was made after a selection by a Board consisting of three members. The recruitment in each case was to a temporary post as will appear from Annexure II to the petition. The material part thereof reads as under :- "2. The appointment will be subject to the following conditions: (a) The post is temporary. (2) You will be on probation for two years. During the probationary period your service can be terminated without notice on either side. After the expiry of the probationary period the appointment may be terminated any time by a month's notice on either side viz., the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reasons. The appointing authority however reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof." Clause 4 states : "If you are willing to accept the appointment please report for duty to this Estt. by 14 Oct., 72 failing which the order made to you will be treated as cancelled." The petitioners accepted the appointment on the conditions mentioned in the letter and joined the service. It appears that a representation was made to the Government that the selection held for the post was irregular. by 14 Oct., 72 failing which the order made to you will be treated as cancelled." The petitioners accepted the appointment on the conditions mentioned in the letter and joined the service. It appears that a representation was made to the Government that the selection held for the post was irregular. This is made clear by para 20 of the petition which states that "the Government has taken a false stand that the earlier selection in which the petitioners were selected was irregular and as such the petitioners after having served for about 11 months had been terminated." The position is further clarified in Para 23 of the petition which states "that from the letter of the Defence Minister (Annexure V) it appears that certain Irregularities were committed at various stages and as such the selection had to be declared void" Annexure V is a letter from the Minister of Defence to the one Sri Chhedilal, which, inter alia, states that Rafter the recruitment of a certain number of Junior Scientific Assistants Gd. II, including 6 Scheduled castes candidates, referred to in your letter, in Cit & C. Kanpur it came to light that a number of serious irregularities bad been committed in the recruitment at various stages consequently, this recruitment had to be declared void and the services of all the 24 candidates, who were appointed as a result of this selection, terminated. The Government however, permitted the persons, whose services had been terminated, to completed in a fresh selection to be held. This was by way of a concession. The services of the petitioners thus, it appears, had to be terminated on account of certain irregularities in the selection. 3. Annexure RAI to the supplementary affidavit also throws some light on the irregularities in the selection. The respondent No. 1, in these circumstances, issued orders terminating the services of the petitioners by paying them a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for one month in lieu of the period of notice. The order of termination. It states that in pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the services of Surendra Kumar Srivastava are terminated. The order of termination. It states that in pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the services of Surendra Kumar Srivastava are terminated. It mentions that he is on probation and that one month's pay shall be given to him in lieu of the period of notice Similar orders appear to have been served on other petitioners. The orders have been challenged on three main grounds; (i) that the petitioners had been appointed permanently and they were not temporary. This was urged on the basis of the probation mentioned in the letter of appointment and it was said that there could be no probation in a temporary appointment; (2) that the termination was arbitrary and (3) that the rule under which the termination was made did not apply to the petitioners. 4. As regards the first point, it would be seen that the order of appointment (Annexure II) itself mentions that the post is temporary, there could, as such, be no permanent appointment to the post. The petitioners accepted the appointment on the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. They would, as such be deemed to have accepted a temporary appointment and could not claim to be permanent. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, urged that clause (b) of the appointment letter mentions a probation for two years and since a probation can be made only in a permanent appointment, the appointment would be deemed to be permanent. Clause (b) of the aforesaid letter reads :- "You will be on probation for two years. During the probationary period your services can be terminated without notice on either side. After the expiry of the probationary period the appointment may be terminated any time by month's notice on either side, viz. the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reasons The appointing authority however, reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him of a sum equivalent to the, pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof." Probation for two years in the above clause, means on trial or test for two years. The clause stipulates that during this period the services can be terminated without notice. The clause stipulates that during this period the services can be terminated without notice. After the expiry of this period, termination of services can be made by giving a month's notice. On this construction there] is no inconsistency in the services being temporary and the petitioners being on probation for two years. In P. L. Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 . It had been held that an appointment to a permanent post and an appointment for a fixed period to a temporary post gives a servant a right to bold the post for the entire period of his tenure. Except in these two cases the appointment to a post, either permanent or temporary, on probation or on officiating basis, or a substantive appointment to a temporary post gives to the servant to right to the post. It will, therefore, be seen that a mere mention of 'probation' for two years' does not enlarge the petitioner's status and convert a temporary appointment into a permanent one. The petitioners would thus continue to be temporary and their status would only be that of temporary Government servants. 5. In State of Punjab v. Sukhraj Bahadur, AIR 1968 SC 1089 the Lordships held that the services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of employment. Relying on that rule, the Supreme court in State of Nagaland v. G. Vasantha, AIR 1973 SC 537 held that an incumbent, whose appointment was made on a temporary basis, could not claim to be quasi-permanent on the ground of his having put in five years' service and the post being made permanent. It was observed that even though a post was made permanent, an incumbent would not become permanent unless there was an order to that effect in his favour. He would remain temporary and would be governed by the terms of contract of service. The termination order was held valid according to rules of service. 6. The petitioners in the instant case would accordingly be only temporary Government servant governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Sub-Clause (3) of the Rules states that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4) that these Rules shall apply to all persons who hold a civil post under the Government of India and who are under the rule making control of the President. Sub-Clause (3) of the Rules states that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4) that these Rules shall apply to all persons who hold a civil post under the Government of India and who are under the rule making control of the President. These rules accordingly apply to the petitioners. Rule 5 (1) (a) provides that the service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service, shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) states that the period of such notice shall be one month. It is under this rule that the termination orders have been passed. The petitioners have already been held to be temporary Government servants, their services could accordingly be terminated under the rule mentioned above. 7. It was urged by learned counsel that because the order of termination mentions that the petitioners are on probation, rule 5 would not apply as that rule applies only to temporary Government servants who have no probation clause attached to their service The mere mention of probation in the order will not confer any better status on them than that of temporary Government servants. The meaning of probation in sub-clause (b) of clause. (2) of the appointment order has already bean explained earlier. The petitioners will thus continue to be temporary notwithstanding a probationary period being mentioned in their service. They would be governed by rule 5 of the Rules. 8. It was then urged that the termination of services was made arbitrarily, in that no reasons had been assigned in the order nor were the petitioners found unsuitable to their jobs. The petitioners having no right to the post, cannot complain against their termination Further the service conditions provided' that it would be open to the Government to terminate their services according to the terms agreed upon between the parties. It is not their case that their services have been terminated contrary to the terms agreed upon. The orders, in the circumstances, cannot be challenged as arbitrary. 9. Further, the selection under which the petitioners entered the service had been cancelled by the Government on grounds of irregularity. It is not their case that their services have been terminated contrary to the terms agreed upon. The orders, in the circumstances, cannot be challenged as arbitrary. 9. Further, the selection under which the petitioners entered the service had been cancelled by the Government on grounds of irregularity. That being the modus operendi, the appointments fall down on the ground of invalid selection and no grievance can be raised against the termination orders : see Shiv Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 962 . 10. No other point was pressed. 11. The petition fails and is dismissed but I make no order as to costs.