N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) ). These two petitions by two different petitioners the employees in the Collectorate Amreli are directed against the notices terminating their services with effect from 30th November 1976. The notices are Annexure A in both the petitions. Annexure B is also the order that followed the said notices and Annexure C in both the petitions is the respective order of the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner of the special civil application no. 1742 of 1976holds a post-graduate degree in commerce and the petitioner of the special civil application No. 1743 of 1976 holds a post-graduate degree in Arts. Both of them were selected and appointed as Junior Clerks in the Collectorate Amreli on being recruited by the Committee constituted under the Centralised Recruitment Scheme. As many as 65 persons were appointed along with the petitioners. The petitioner of the first petition was topping the list of those selected candidates and the petitioner of the second petition was at Sr. No. 13 in the said select list. The petitioners are sought to be relieved by resort to Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules which makes the services of a temporary Government Servant liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by that authority to the Government servant. The petitioners grievance in these petitions in that discrimination has been practised against them in so far as Government servants far junior to the petitioners were retained in service whereas the petitioners were singled out for this invidious treatment According to them the discrimination is patent because it is nobodys say that the petitioners were found to be unsuitable for being retained in service vis-a-vis those retained. ( 2 ) THE affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Collector Amreli in both these petitions and the only point urged is that Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules gives power to the appointing authority to put an end to the services of the Government employee without assigning any reasons and also in terms of the appointment order which is the ingredient of a contract between the employer and the employee. No other ground has been urged though Mr. Shah the learned Assistant Govt. No other ground has been urged though Mr. Shah the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader stated that the Government had some reasons with them not to continue the petitioners in service. For want of any statement made in the record and in the affidavit-in-reply the case is required to be examined and decided only in the light of averments made in the petition and in the affidavit-in-reply. ( 3 ) WERE it a case of a private employment the resultant rights and liabilities would squarely be covered by the contract between the parties. However this being a public employment and the employer being the State the constitutional burden on the State not to violate the guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is there. So the first defence resting on the terms of employment as evidenced by the order of appointment is not available to the respondent. ( 4 ) THE second ground is resort to Rule 33 (1) (a) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules which is referred to above. This Rule is also subject to the statutory obligations. When the Collector Amreli had before him similarly situated persons. the normal rule of equality of treatment in the matter of employment was required to be respected by him as a mandate of the Constitution. By recourse only to that Rule 33 the doors for flagrant discrimination cannot be thrown open. Rule 33 therefore would be attracted if the charge of invidious discrimination is not levelled. II is no doubt true that when such a charge is levelled it is open to the State or the public authority to explode that charge and then fall back on a rule like Rule 33 (1) (a) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules. The impugned orders in these two petitions are challenged on the ground of their being violative of Article 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the discrimination is written large on the petitions themselves. When the petitioner of the special civil application no. 1742 of 1976 was topping the list of the successful candidates selected by the committee and when the petitioner of the second petition was at Sr. When the petitioner of the special civil application no. 1742 of 1976 was topping the list of the successful candidates selected by the committee and when the petitioner of the second petition was at Sr. No. 13 of that list and when many persons junior to the petitioners are retained in service without there being even a remote allegation of their having been found unsuitable for retention in service the action is to be treated as the one based on discrimination. ( 5 ) IN this connection the recent judgment of the Supreme Court is required to be referred to. It is the case of The Manager Govt. Branch Press and another v. D. B. Belliappa A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 429. It deals with the services of a Temporary Government servant and the Supreme Court in that connection laid down as follows" If the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated in accordance with the conditions of his service on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct or his unsuitability for the job and/or for his work being unsatisfactory or for a like reason which marks him off a class apart from other temporary servants who have been retained in service there is no question of the applicability of Art. 16. Conversely if the services of a temporary Govt. servant are terminated arbitrarily and not on the ground of his unsuitability unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service the question of unfair discrimination may arise notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the employment. Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of the service it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action". ( 6 ) THIS ratio as discussed by me is squarely attracted to this case. ( 6 ) THIS ratio as discussed by me is squarely attracted to this case. It is to be noted with pertinance that in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in- reply in both the petitions the Collector specifically states as follows :"7 Referring to paragraph 4 of the petition it is not the case of the Government that the service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory and that his services were terminated on any ground concerning his work and conduct" ( 7 ) MR. Shah the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader wanted to produce the office file showing that the petitioners were directed to be relieved from the services on the ground that when they were appointed they were age-barred and on that count they should be relieved and that because of this over-winning circumstance the petitioners were relieved. It is obvious that Mr. Shah wanted to urge that they were relieved as per the direction of the Government. There was nothing to prevent the respondents from making out this ground in their affidavit-in-reply but nothing of the sort having been done except at this belated stage of submission by Mr. Shah I do not think it expedient in the interest of justice to entertain this belated plea and on this count alone I refuse to lend any ears to this particular contention of the State. ( 8 ) MR. Shah the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader had also at this stage invited my attention to another recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhoop Singh Verma A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 684. In that case the action of the Government was upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that the order terminating the respondents services had not been made by way of punishment and was an order of termination simpliciter in accordance with the Rules applicable to temporary Government servant. It was held that it was based only the examination of suitability of the petitioner for retention in service or not. The case on hand substantially differs from the one cited above. Here we have got a categorical statement to the effect that the petitioners services were terminated by resort to discharge simpliciter despite their having been found suitable for the post and despite their juniors having been retained in service. The case on hand substantially differs from the one cited above. Here we have got a categorical statement to the effect that the petitioners services were terminated by resort to discharge simpliciter despite their having been found suitable for the post and despite their juniors having been retained in service. The case before us is therefore a case of patent discrimination practised against the petitioners. ( 9 ) IN above view of the matter the impugned orders of termination of services in both the cases Annexure B to those petitions are set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. The result would be that the petitioners would continue to function in the posts to which they were appointed as per the order Annexure C in both the petitions. Petition allowed. .