JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner Dayanand Misra was a lower division clerk in the office of the Accountant General, U. P. Allahabad. An advertisement was made on January 10, 1965, inviting applications to constitute a panel for the posts of lower division clerk. The minimum educational qualification required was High School. The applicants were also required to possess minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typing. The petitioner too was required to appear at the type-writing test held on 14th January 1965, where after he was interviewed and selected. A letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on October 28, 1967. The appointment was temporary in the scale of Rs. 110-180. The petitioner joined his service on 16th November, 1967, and he continued to hold that post till September, 1975, and on that date his services were terminated with immediate effect. He made representation to the higher authorities against the termination of his service. He was reinstated by the order dated 5-11-1977. The petitioner was required against thereafter to appear at the type-writing test. He represented contended that he had been appointed initially after getting through the type-writing test. The representation was rejected and his services were terminated by the impugned order dated 17th March, 1980, with immediate effect providing that he shall be entitled to claim the pay plus the D.A. for a period of one months's notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming relief of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17th March, 1980, and direction to the respondents that he be treated as continuing in service and eligible to the benefits thereof including the matter of confirmation and increments. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner had passed typing test in 1965 before his initial appointment, the respondent could not insist on him to appear at that test again. Moreover, under the terms and conditions of service the petitioner could not be required to reappear at the typing test. It was further contended that the petitioner having been reinstated, there could be no question of imposing any condition for his passing the typing test. In order to consider the petitioner's contention it is necessary to refer to relevant Government orders on the subject. 3. It was further contended that the petitioner having been reinstated, there could be no question of imposing any condition for his passing the typing test. In order to consider the petitioner's contention it is necessary to refer to relevant Government orders on the subject. 3. The Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, issued an office memorandum dated 15th September, 1956, according to which possession of speed in typing at 30 words per minute was prescribed as a pre-requisite qualification for appointment to the grade of lower division clerk. This was relaxed by the Office Memo dated 11th August, 1964, issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as sufficient number of candidates with the requisite qualification were not available for appointment generally to the grade of lower division clerk. It was decided therefore, not to insist upon the typing qualification with the speed of 30 words per minute at the initial stage of recruitment to the grade of lower division clerk. This office memo provided that "in future for entry into service under the Government of India, possession of typing qualification need not be insisted upon in the case of lower division clerk but the persons so appointed w ill neither be eligible to draw increments in the pay scale nor will they be entitled to confirmation in the grade till they acquire the prescribed speed of 30 words per minute in typing". It was expressly mentioned that this office memo was not applicable to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. On 8th May, 1967, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India extended the office memo dated 13th July, 1964 mentioned above to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department also "from the next recruitment onwards" specifying at the same time that these orders were not to apply to the existing lower division clerk or "those recruited before the end of the current recruitment year i. e. 30-9-1967. The result was that the relaxation introduced by the office memo dated 13th July, 1964 became applicable the Indian Audit and Accounts Service with effect from the recruitment year succeeding 30th September, 1967, in the case of recruitment made after 30th September, 1967. The result was that the relaxation introduced by the office memo dated 13th July, 1964 became applicable the Indian Audit and Accounts Service with effect from the recruitment year succeeding 30th September, 1967, in the case of recruitment made after 30th September, 1967. In other words, the qualification of possessing speed of 30 words per minute is the minimum in English typing was dispensed' with at the initial stage though the candidate was not entitled to confirmation or increment without having acquired this speed. The Accountant General, U. P., Allahabad, made a general order on July 26/29, to the effect that all lower division clerks appointed on or after October 1, 1967, were required to acquire the prescribed speed of 30 words per minute in typing and that those who failed to acquire the prescribed speed in typing, would not be eligible to get increment, nor were they to be entitled to confirmation. In pursuance of that order the petitioner was required to appear at typing test. It appears he failed to pass the typing test, hence his services were terminated, riven after his reinstatement he was again required to pass the typing test in the petitioner did not appear at the test, whereupon his services were terminated by the impugned order. 4. The petitioner's learned counsel urged that the invocation of the general order dated July 26/29, 1968, made by the Accountant General, U.P. to the petitioner's case is misconceived. The reasons are two fold. In the first place the order dated 8th May, 1967 made the order contained in the office memo dated 30th July, 1964, applicable to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department from the subsequent recruitments onwards specifying at the same time that those orders would not apply to the existing lower division clerks or those recruited before the end of the calendar recruitment year i.e. 30-9-1967. In the instant case, the recruitment had taken place before May, 1967. Advertisement for the post was issued on January 10, 1965. The last date for the submission of the application was mentioned as 8th February, 1965. The petitioner had been called for the type-writing test held on 14th June, 1965. The panel itself was drawn on 21st June, 1965. The selection had thus been finalised for ail purposes. Advertisement for the post was issued on January 10, 1965. The last date for the submission of the application was mentioned as 8th February, 1965. The petitioner had been called for the type-writing test held on 14th June, 1965. The panel itself was drawn on 21st June, 1965. The selection had thus been finalised for ail purposes. The letter of appointment, no doubt, was issued on October 28, 1967, but in so far as the process of recruitment is concerned, the same had concluded much earlier. We are unable to read in the office memo dated 8th May, 1967 an Intention that the recruitment made prior to the date thereof be reopened. Even the order of the Accountant General dated 26/29th July, 1968 clarifies that the relaxation was to operate in the future in respect of the recruitment that may take place subsequent to 30th September, 1967. The recruitment preceding this date was not sought to be interfered with, if made in keeping with the criteria then enforced 5. Secondly, in cases where recruitment is made subsequent to September 30, 1967, the direction in the office memo dated 8th May, 1967 and also in the order of the Accountant General dated 26/29th July, 1968, was that the confirmation be not made and the increment not allowed, unless the employee requires the minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typing. None of these orders envisaged termination of the services of an employee in whose case the recruitment took place before 30th September, 1967 or for that matter even in respect of an employee whose recruitment was made after that date. 6. There is another aspect of the matter also. The petitioner has averred that he had appeared and passed at the English typing test before he was appointed. This averment of the petitioner is not specifically refuted on behalf of the respondents, who have pleaded in reply in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit that the record of the 1965 selection had been weeded out and it could not be established on that account that the petitioner had passed the typing test. As mentioned above, the office memo dated 13th September, 1956 then in force insisted upon the candidate having the minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English type-writing for the purpose of initial appointment. As mentioned above, the office memo dated 13th September, 1956 then in force insisted upon the candidate having the minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English type-writing for the purpose of initial appointment. The advertisement made on 10-1-1965 required the candidate to specify whether he possessed the speed of 30 words per minute in English typing and it was stated that the candidates will have to appear in the typing test. Preference was to be given to those having a minimum speed of 40 words per minute. On 10th June, 1965, an intimation was given to the petitioner in writing requiring him to appear at the the writing test on 14th June, 1965. In these circumstances it can be safely held that the petitioner appeared at the type-writing test and got through the same before he was given initial appointment. The appointment given to the petitioner on 28th October, 1967, was unconditional in the sense that it did not require him to appear at any further test. The position remains unaltered despite the petitioner being, required during September, 1968 to January, 1972 to appear at the typing test over again. 7. This brings us to the contention of the respondents' learned counsel that the reinstatement of the petitioner by order dated 5th November, 1977 was conditional. That order recites that the petitioner was reinstated to the post of the lower division clerk with effect from the date he resumed duty and his further retention in service will be subject to his passing the prescribed typing test within a period of twelve months of his joining the duty. It is submitted that, in view of the conditions imposed in the reinstatement order, the petitioner could not be retained on his failure to appear at a further test in type-writing. We are unable to agree with this contention. There is no dispute that the order passed was of reinstatement and not of reappointment. The expression 'reinstatement' means according to the Black's Law Dictionary [5th Ed. We are unable to agree with this contention. There is no dispute that the order passed was of reinstatement and not of reappointment. The expression 'reinstatement' means according to the Black's Law Dictionary [5th Ed. (1979) at page 1157] 'To reinstall ; to re-establish ; to place again in a former state or condition or office ; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.' Subsequent to his reinstatement, the petitioner was granted full pay and allowances for the period of termination and the period of absence during the termination was treated as on duty. His averment to this effect in paragraph 17 of the petition has not been refuted. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, empowers the appointing authority to reopen the case and reinstate a Government servant in service. According to clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 5(2), the order of reinstatement shall specify (i) the amount or proportion of pay and the amounts, if any, to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from the date of termination of his service and the date of his reinstatement and (ii) whether the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty for any specified purposes or purpose. It is not without significance that the provision does not envisage the imposition of a new term of condition. On being reinstated, for instance the petitioner could not be directed to reappear at the written test to enable appointing authority to reconsider whether he is fit to be taken in service. On parity of reasoning the position does not vary with reference to the type-writing test either. The petitioner was appointed on being adjudged duly qualified including in the manner of type-writing. This has been the consistent stand taken by the petitioner as appearing from the representation made by him dated 19th August, 1978. 8. For the reasons given above, the order of termination of service of the petitioner passed on March 17, 1980 cannot be sustained. 9. The petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 17th March, 1980 is quashed. The petitioner shall be treated as continuing in service. His confirmation and increments are not adversely affected by the direction contained in the order dated July 26/29, 1968. 9. The petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 17th March, 1980 is quashed. The petitioner shall be treated as continuing in service. His confirmation and increments are not adversely affected by the direction contained in the order dated July 26/29, 1968. There will be no order as to costs.