JUDGMENT : H.N. Seth, J. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, who were appointed as temporary Lekhpals, question the validity of the order dated November 28, 1981 passed by the Addl. S.D.O., Lakhimpur terminating their service with immediate effect. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the Addl. S.D.O. Lakhimpur had under the Lekhpal Service Rules no jurisdiction to terminate their services. 3. Rule 7 of the Lekhpal Service Rules provides that the appointing authority of Lekhpal is Asst. Collector, which as defined in Rule 3 (a) means an Asstt. Collector Incharge of a Sub-Division is appointed by State Government under Section 18 of the U.P, Land Revenue Act, 1901. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer does not fall within the purview of the expression Asstt. Collector Incharge of a Sub-Division. Petitioners' services could be terminated only by their appointing Authority i.e., Asstt. Collector Incharge of a Sub-Division and not by Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer. 4. On 7th of January, 1982 the Chief Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions with regard to jurisdiction of the Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer to terminate the services of a Lekhpal. The Chief Standing Counsel has, under instructions from a representative of the Beard of Revenue, conceded the position that the Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer cannot he said to he an Asstt. Collector Incharge of a Sub-Division within the meaning of Land Revenue Act. In this view of the matter, we have, as indicated in our order dated 7th of January, 1982, proceeded to dispose of the petitions finally at the preliminary stage after hearing the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 5. In the result, both the petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders dated 28th of November, 1981 passed by the Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhimpur, mentioned in communication dated 28th of November. 1981 (Annexure-1 to the writ petitions) are quashed.