Judgment Hari Lal Agarwal, S. Shamsul Hasan, JJ. 1. The petitioner, an Extra departmental Branch Postmaster appointed by the Union of India in the Depart ment of Posts and Telegraphs has filed this V/s. rit application against the order of termination of his services by the order, Annexure-2 dated 24-8-1981, passed by superintendent of Post Offices, Darbhanga (respondent No.2 ). 2. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 2-2-1981. He was provisicnally selected for the said appointment by respondent No.2 by letter (Annexure-1)in which he was given to understand that (i) his appointment as Extra Depart mental Branch Postmaster shall be in the nature of contract liable to be terminated by the undersigned respondent No.2) at any time notifying the order in writing and (ii) he shall be governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964 as amended from time to time. 3. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order has taken recourse to the second condition mentioned in the letter of selection, inasmuch as, it specifically mentions that the petitioners services were being terminated under Rule 6 of the Extra departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 with immediately. 4. This brings us at once to Rule 6 which reads as follows :- "the services of an employee who has not already rendered more than 3 years continuous service from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination by the appointing authority at any time without notice for generally unsatisfactory work, or an any administrative ground un-connected with bis conduct. " the rule in question, therefore, contemplates that the services of the petitioner could be terminated at any time without notice either for (i) generally unsatis-factory work or (ii) on any administrative ground un-connected with his conduct. 5. The respondent in his wisdom thought to give a notice of termination and specifically mentioned there that the petitioners services were being terminated under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service)Rules. The argument on this account is that the mentioning of Rule 6 auto matically attracted the stigma of generally unsatisfactory work of the petitioner and, therefore, he was entitled to the protection contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. The argument on this account is that the mentioning of Rule 6 auto matically attracted the stigma of generally unsatisfactory work of the petitioner and, therefore, he was entitled to the protection contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. A. K. Sinha appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, con tends that the appointment of the petitiones was precarious in the sense it was only provisional and he could be terminated at any time. The petitioners services could be terminated at any time cannot be dispuscd and had the respondent No.2 simply terminated the petitioners services, the petitioner might have no case, but the moment the ground for termination was given as Rule 6 of the Posts and telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, then, in our considered opinion, which contemplated that the petitioners work was found generally unsatisfactory, and as persion cast upon him and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as it has been passed in violation of the procedure prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 7. We would accordingly, allow this application and quash the order contained in Annexure-2, but without any order as to costs. Writ application allowed.