JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - The case as set up by the petitioner in his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is as follows : "The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police in district Badaun against a clear substantive vacancy with effect from 16 May 1963. Thereafter he was sent for regular training and after successfully completing the said training the petitioner was posted as a constable (civil police) in district Pilibhit. In the year 1974 the petitioner had to be on leave due to the serious illness of his children for sixty four days. On return from leave he was called by opposite party 2 and was made known that his leave was made without pay and was awarded fourteen days' punishment-drill and immediately thereafter his services were terminated by an order, dated 26 September 1974, passed by opposite party 2 which was served on him on 27 September 1974. The petitioner filed an appeal from the said order before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bareilly Range, Bareilly, which was rejected by an order, dated 9 December 1975. Then he served a notice under S. 80, Criminal Procedure Code, on the State Government. Thereafter he filed a claim petition before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which was contested by the Sta to Government. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition by an order, dated 5 May 1977. Aggrieved by that decision the petitioner has filed the instant petition. The petition has been opposed and a counter-affidavit has been filed." 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the last date of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the service bock of the petitioner may be sent from the Government and be ordered to be produced before the Court. Consequently, the learned counsel has produced the service book of the petitioner before me today. I have perused it. The learned counsel for the petitioner has all perused the service bock. 3. For the petitioner it was urged that the impugned order terminating the employment of the petitioner was violative of the provisions of Para. Consequently, the learned counsel has produced the service book of the petitioner before me today. I have perused it. The learned counsel for the petitioner has all perused the service bock. 3. For the petitioner it was urged that the impugned order terminating the employment of the petitioner was violative of the provisions of Para. 541 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed in a clear vacancy, hence he should be deemed to have been on two years' probation and later on confirmed and as he was not given an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be discharged, the order treating him as a temporary employee was illegal, null and void. The contention was that it has not been established by the State Government that the petitioner was not appointed in a clear vacancy. The petitioner has contended in the instant writ petition that he was appointed in a clear vacancy. This fact has been denied in the counter-affidavit. This was asserted before the Public Services Tribunal and was refuted there as well. It seems that before the Public Services Tribunal the State Government had placed reliance on two documents referred to in the judgment of the Tribunal, i.e., annexures 8 and 9. Copy of annexure 8 has been shown to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a copy of an order, dated 12 May 1963. By that order the petitioner was recruited as a temporary employee. Annexure 9 filed before the Public Services Tribunal is the order terminating his services. In that order also the petitioner was shown as a temporary employee. the service book which has been produced before me indicates that the appointment of the petitioner was made in a temporary capacity. The contention of the petitioner, however, was that under S. 2 of the Police Act, a person could be appointed in a temporary capacity on a permanent post and, therefore, Para. 541 of the Police Regulations would be attracted. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the petitioner was never recruited in a clear vacancy. He was all along treated as a temporary employee and that there is nothing on the record to show that he was appointed on a permanent basis in a temporary capacity or that he was asked to officiate in a clear vacancy. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the petitioner was never recruited in a clear vacancy. He was all along treated as a temporary employee and that there is nothing on the record to show that he was appointed on a permanent basis in a temporary capacity or that he was asked to officiate in a clear vacancy. Paragraph 541 of the Police Regulations and S. 2 of the Police Act came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Nanak Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1971 A.L.J. 724. It was held by the Full Bench in that case that it is not correct to say that no temporary posts can be created in the police force. Section 2 of the Police Act is certainly wide enough to permit such posts to be created, and it appears that it is row the general rule in Uttar Pradesh for all new recruits to be employed at first in a temporary capacity. 4. Construing Para. 541 of the Police Regulations the Full Bench observed: "We are unable to see, however, how the provisions in the Police Act and in the Police Regulations to which our attention has been drawn can be said to support the argument put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners. No section of the Police Act and no paragraph of the Police Regulations has been brought to our notice that is incompatible with the existence of temporary posts in the police force. Section 2 of the Police Act lays down that the police establishment under a State Government shall be constituted in such manner as shall from time to time be order by the State Government and this power to constitute the police force clearly includes the power to create all kinds of posts in that force both permanent and temporary. The mere fact that when a police officer joins the police he is formally enrolled therein by being given a certificate in accordance with S. 8 investing him with all the powers, functions and privileges of the police officer in no way implies that he must be a permanent officer for there seems to be no reason why a temporary employee should not also be invested with all these powers. And even assuming that Sections 13 to 15 and 17 of the Act relate to temporary appointments (which is decidedly doubtful in the case of the first three sections, there is nothing to suggest that these are the only temporary appointments that can be made under the Police Act. Ample material has been produced on behalf of the State Government in the counter-affidavits that have been filed in reply to these petitions to show that police officers have been regularly recruited on a temporary basis each year for a considerable number of years and we can see nothing illegal or incompatible with the provisions of the Police Act in such recruitment. The misapprehension that temporary posts in the police force are not contemplated by the Police Act and the Police Regulations seems to have arisen on account of complete absence from the Police Regulations of any rules or instructions in respect of temporary police officers. But this is probably due to the fact that the regulations in question were framed long ago at a time when it was not considered necessary to have any temporary posts." 5. It was argued in the case of Nanak Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1971 A.L.J. 724. (vide supra), that all petitioners, having passed through the prescribed training courses and having been attached to police stations must be deemed to have become probationers in accordance with the above quoted provisions of Chaps XXXVI and XXXVII of the Police Regulations, with the result that their services could not be terminated without affording them to show cause against the proposed action even assuming that they still remain probationers and have not been confirmed as permanent police officers on the expiry of their probationary period. Repelling this contention the Full Bench observed we are fully satisfied, however, that Chaps. XXXVI and XXXVII were never meant to apply to temporary recruits. Moreover the paragraphs on which reliance has been placed have not been shown to have statutory force. and to us it appears that they merely embody administrative direction is as to what is necessary by way of training and experience before a police officer can be considered fit for permanent appointment. Moreover the paragraphs on which reliance has been placed have not been shown to have statutory force. and to us it appears that they merely embody administrative direction is as to what is necessary by way of training and experience before a police officer can be considered fit for permanent appointment. Similarly the contention that the termination orders were bad because there was no specific provision in the Police Act or Police Regulations for such termination of services was also repelled by the Full Bench by holding that temporary police officers like other temporary Government servants were obviously covered by the notification, dated 30 January 1953, that has been reproduced in appendix II to the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and their services were terminable on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. The Full Bench applied the said notification to the petitions of that case since it could be treated as having been issued as regards police officers in exercise of the rule making power conferred on the State Government by S. 46(2) of the Police Act. The Full Bench, therefore, held in that case that the petitioners were recruited at first in a temporary capacity and that throughout their service they remained temporary employees whose services were liable to termination on one month's notice. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the decision of the Full Bench in Nanak Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1971 A.L.J. 724. (vide supra), was distinguishable on the ground that in that case it was clearly found that the posts had been advertized as temporary posts whereas in the instant case it has been shown that the petitioner was not appointed in a clear vacancy. There is no merit in this contention. In the case of Director, Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh, and others v. Babu Singh Gaur, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 420 and State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Nand Kishore Tandon, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1267. it was held that a temporary Government servant does not become a permanent Government servant unless he gets that capacity either under some rule or he is declared or appointed by the Government as a permanent Government servant. A person who is appointed in a substantive capacity to a temporary post does not become permanent merely because the post is declared to be permanent. A person who is appointed in a substantive capacity to a temporary post does not become permanent merely because the post is declared to be permanent. In such a case the order terminating the services of such an employee as a temporary employee is not-illegal. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Chandra Bhal Singh, (1981) 1 S.L.R. 579, while considering the import of Para. 541 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations held that if temporary posts can be created and appointments made thereto without any express provision in the regulations in that behalf such appointments are not violative of Para. 541. There seems no reason why it should not be held in view of Babu Singh Gaur v. Nand Kishore Tandon, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 420. (vide supra), that temporary appointments to permanent posts can also be made. Referring to the aforesaid Full Bench decisions it was held in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Chandra Bhal Singh cake (vide supra) that Para. 541 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations toes not apply to temporary appointments against permanent posts. Again referring to rule 3(.) of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, it was held in Chandra Bhal Singh case (vide supra), that these rules override anything to the contrary in the existing rules or orders on the subject of termination of temporary service. Temporary servant has been defined in rule 2 as including officiating service on a permanent post. Thus, Para. 541 stands overridden by rule 3. 8. In the case in hand the petitioner was appointed in a temporary capacity. His services were terminated by one month's notice. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal has found that the petitioner was not recruited against a permanent vacancy. That being the position Para 541 of the Police Regulations would not be applicable. It has also found that the petitioner was recruited as a temporary employee and remained a temporary employee and was never placed on probation hence under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, his services could be terminated on one month's notice. In my opinion, the view taken by the Public Services Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case was correct. In my opinion, the view taken by the Public Services Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case was correct. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal and quash the order terminating the employment of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons in the foregoing the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.