JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the notice dated October 5, 1970, whereby the services of the respondent was terminated. 2. The respondent was appointed as Staff Artist in All India Radio, Bombay, under an agreement executed by him with the Director General of All India Radio respondent No. 2. The agreement was for three years: On the expiry of three years the respondent was re-employed and his contract was renewed on yearly basis upto 30th November, 1964. Thereafter he was re employed on five years' contract. Earlier by an order, dated 31-1-1965 the Government of India had fixed the pay scale of Staff Artists The respondent was placed in the scale of Rs. 110-286 as Copyist. On November 2, 1967 the Government of India passed an order stating that the Staff Artists should be allowed to remain in service upto the age of 55 years. Accordingly, a clause was added to the agreement executed by the respondent Stipulating that the respondent shall remain in service upto December 31, 1985, on which date he was to obtain the age of 55 years. Clause 4(v) of the agreement, however, provided that the respondent's services will be liable to be terminated on six months' notice on either side. In due course the respondent was transferred to All India Radio, Varanasi. 3. The Assistant Station Director of All India Radio, Varanasi, issued a notice dated 5th October, 1970. intimation the respondent that his services would stand terminated on the expiry of six months from 5th October, 1970 in accordance with clause 4(v) of the agreement. The respondent challenged the validity of that notice by the writ petition, giving rise to this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the service conditions of the respondent it must be held that ne was holding a civil past and as such was entitled to the protection of Articles 311(2) and 16 of the Constitution. It was also held that inasmuch as persons junior to the respondent had been retained in service, the appointing Authority in terminating the services of the respondent has violated Article 16 of the Constitution. On these grounds the notice of termination of the respondent's services was held bad and quashed. 5. Aggrieved, the Union of India has come up in appeal. On these grounds the notice of termination of the respondent's services was held bad and quashed. 5. Aggrieved, the Union of India has come up in appeal. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the respondent was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. Under clause (1) of the Agreement the respondent was to submit himself to the orders of the Government and of the Officers and the authorities under whom he may from time to time be placed by the Government and bad to render the services required of him. Under clause (2) he was to devote his whole time to the service required of him and at all times obey the rules prescribed from him from time to time and shall, whenever required, proceed to any part of India and there render such services as may be assigned to him. He was debarred from absenting himself without obtaining prior permission of the head of All India Radio. Clause (3) provides that staff artist may be required to render such services other than the services assigned to him under this contract. Clauses (4) provides for punishment to the staff artists. In view of these clauses it is apparent that the Government in consideration of a monthly salary controls the nature and manner of work assigned to the staff artists The respondent was liable to disciplinary proceedings and could not even absent himself from duty without prior permission of the head. In view of these service conditions, it cannot be said that the respondent was an independent contractor. The Government had complete control over his work as well as manner and method of doing his work, which was supervised by the higher authorities. In our opinion, the relationship between the respondent and the appellants was clearly of a master and servant. In this view, the respondent was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution, as explained by the Supreme court in the case of State of U.P. v. Audh Narain Singh and another A.I.R. 1965 SC 360. 6. It is true that the authority to terminate the services of respondent on 6 months' notice was not the subject matter of statutory rules. 6. It is true that the authority to terminate the services of respondent on 6 months' notice was not the subject matter of statutory rules. It was a term in the agreement executed by the respondent with the Director General of All India Radio, respondent No. 2. In Moti Ham v. A.E. Frontier Railway AIR 1964 SC 600 . the Supreme Court had to consider rule 148(3) of the Railway Establishment Code, under which the services of a permanent railway servant could be terminated on three months notice. The supreme Court held that the rule was tantamount to removal of the servant from service and attracted Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In paragraph 32 the court observed that :- "Article 311(1) provides that no person to whom the said articles applies shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed Can it be suggested that the railway administration can enter into contract with its employees by which authority to dismiss or remove the employees can be delegated to persons other than those contemplated by Article 311(1). The answer to this question is obviously in the negative, and the same answer must be given to the contention that as a result of the contract which embodies the impugned Rules, the termination of the railway servant's services would not attract, the provision of Article 311(2) though in law is amounts to removal." 7. Those observations are opposite and applicable to the present case. 8. In the present case the authority to terminate the respondent's services on 6 months' notice emanated from the contract but nonetheless as it has the effect of violating Article 311(1) of the Constitution. It must comply with Article 311(2) otherwise the termination would be removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) aid in violation of its provisions. Since the six months' notice could be given at any stage of service even though the agreement itself contemplated that the respondent shall continue to serve till he attains the age of 55 years, its application on the authority of Motiram's case would not amount to merely termination of service bat removal from service within meaning of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. Since the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution were not complied with in this case, the notice of termination was void and rightly quashed. 9. Since the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution were not complied with in this case, the notice of termination was void and rightly quashed. 9. The appeal farts and is, accordingly dismissed with costs.