DWARKA PRASAD, J.—The petitioner, Manumal, was employed as a temporary Patwari in Tehsil Chohtan of District Barmer in the State of Raj. by the order dated April 10,1970 passed by the Collector, Barmer. He joined his duties as a Patwari on April 16, 1970 and continued to serve in that capacity until November 21, 1973. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated November 14, 1973 on the ground that due to reversion of persons from the posts of Land Record Inspectors no vacant post of Patwari remained and as such the service of the junior most temporary Patwari including the petitioner was terminated. The order was communicated to the petitioner on November 20, 1973 and he was relieved in the fore-noon of November 21,1973. 2. The case of the petitioner is that termination of his service by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated November 14, 1973 was void and ineffective as the provisions of rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were not complied with, inasmuch as neither one months notice was given to the petitioner before terminating his service nor one months pay in lieu of notice was given to him along with the intimation regarding the termination of his service. 3. No reply has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the State but it was asserted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the service of the petitioner was terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the order of his appointment as a temporary Patwari and no notice was required to be given to him under sub-rule (1) of rule 23-A. 6. Rule 23-A, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, runs as under:- "23-A. (1) Except as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2), the service of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant: Provided that service of any such Government servant may be terminated forth with by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay for the period of notice or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the month or any agreed longer period. The payment of allowances shall be subject to the condition under which such allowances are admissible. (2) The service of a temporary Government servant, (a) who has been in continuous Government service for more than three years; and (b) who satisfies the suitability in respect of age and qualifications prescribed for the post and has been appointed in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary shall be liable to termination- (i) in the same circumstances and in the same manner as a Government servant in permanent service; or (ii) when reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service: Provided that termination of service consequent on reduction of posts in a cadre under the appointing authority shall take place in order of juniority." 5. Although the petitioner served the State of Rajasthan in the capacity of a Patwari for a period of more than 3 years yet the petitioner has not claimed any relief under sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A because it is not disputed that the petitioner did not pass the Patwar School Certificate Examination, which was one of the essential qualifications for substantive appointment on the post of Patwari. The order of appointment of the petitioner dated April 10, 1970 contained a condition that the temporary employment of the petitioner shall cause to exist if the surplus employees of the State were available through the agency of the Absorption Committee or the surplus Amins of Settlement Department or trained persons would be available and in that event service of the petitioner could be terminated without any notice. According to the respondents, as some Inspectors of Land Records who became surplus were appointed as Patwaris, no substantive post of Patwari remained vacant and as such the service of junior-most temporary Patwaris was dispensed with, with immediate effect by the order dated November 14, 1973. 6. According to the respondents, as some Inspectors of Land Records who became surplus were appointed as Patwaris, no substantive post of Patwari remained vacant and as such the service of junior-most temporary Patwaris was dispensed with, with immediate effect by the order dated November 14, 1973. 6. In the first instance, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that clause (1) of rule 23-A was attracted in the present case, as the petitioner was a temporary Government servant and his service could be terminated at any time by a notice in writing for a period of one month. However, clause (1) of Rule 23-A contains a stipulation that the period of notice can be reduced or enlarged to more than one month if it was otherwise "agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant." It has been held by this Court that if a condition is imposed at the time of appointment of a Government servant and if he joins service in persuance thereof his service would be liable to be terminated on the fulfilment of the specified contingency and then the condition of one months notice, as contained in clause (1) or Rule 23-A of the Rules, would no longer remain applicable. 7. In Manoharlal Dave vs. State of Rajasthan (1) a learned Judge of this Court held that where there was a prior agreement between the parties that the service of the employee shall be terminated without notice there was no noncompliance of the provisions of Rule 23-A (1) if the employment of the emyloyee is terminated with immediate effect without prior notice on the fulfilment of the specified condition. When the condition is contained in the letter of appointment of the Government servant and the person joins the employment offered to him, then the conduct of such person amounts to acceptance of the condition imposed upon him in the letter of appointment. 8. A similar view was taken by me in Arun Kumar Modi vs. State of Rajasthan (2). In that case, it was held as under:- "there is no doubt that once a person is appointed to a post in Government service then he acquires a status and his rights and duties are to be regulated by the statute or statutory rules. A similar view was taken by me in Arun Kumar Modi vs. State of Rajasthan (2). In that case, it was held as under:- "there is no doubt that once a person is appointed to a post in Government service then he acquires a status and his rights and duties are to be regulated by the statute or statutory rules. However, the provisions of rule 23-A, which provide for termination of services of a temporary Government servant by a notice in writing given by either side and also provide that the duration of such notice shall be one month, further lays down, "unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant." Thus, no doubt, ordinarily if a person is temporarily appointed to a post in Government service, then his temporary services could be put an end to by giving him one months notice. But here statutory rule itself envisages that the period of such notice can be altered by agreement between the parties. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that one months notice is absolutely necessary but the parties could agree to a longer period of notice. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. If the parties could agree to a longer period of notice there could be no impediment by the provisions of rule 23-A(1) of the rules if the parties agreed to a shorter period of notice. The Government and the employee could by their agreement, in my view, either enlarge of reduce the period of notice envisaged under rule 23-A and could also agree that the temporary employment of the employee concerned, would automatically come to an end on the happening of a specified contingency. The period of one month mentioned in rule 23-A (1) is only applicable to the case of those temporary employees in whose case no period of notice is agreed to between the Government and the employees concerned. I fail to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel that if it is open to the parties to agree to a larger period of notice and the same may be binding on the parties, where is the prohibition contained in rule 23(1) or for that matter in any other rule that the period cannot be reduced by the consent of the parties. On the other hand, in my opinion, rule 23-A specifically provides that the period of notice could be fixed or altered by agreement of the Government and the employee concerned. In the orders of appointment of the petitioners it has specifically been stated that their temporary employment would continue only till the persons selected by the Commission were not available and the petitioners joined the posts of Civil Assistant Surgeons in pursuance of such orders of appointments obviously agreeing to the terms and conditions mentioned therein As the specified event, on the happening of which the temporary employment of the petitioners was to come to an end, according to their agreement, has taken place and persons selected by the Commission were available, the temporary employment of the petitioners, no doubt, come to an end in accordance with the specific term contained in their orders of appointment read with rule 23A of the rules. The condition on which the petitioners were temporarily employed, namely, that their temporary services would continue only till persons selected by the Commission were available, was not at all inconsistant with the provisions of rule 23A(1) of the Service Rules, as the said rule itself envisazed that the period of notice for the termination of the temporary services of the employees could be governed by the agreement between the parties and absence thereof, such period would be of one months duration. Thus, in the cases before me, there was clear agreement to the contrary between the employer and the employee and one months notice was not necessary." 9. The reasons given in the aforesaid passage are fully applicable to the present case as the order of appointment of the petitioner contained a specific condition that his temporary employment shall be terminated without any prior notice on the happening of the specified event or on the fulfilment of the specified continuancy and the petitioner accepted the condition by joining the service as a Patwari in a temporary capacity in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment order dated April 10, 1970. Thus, in the present case, there was an agreement to the contrary between the employer and the employee and giving of one monthss notice was not necessary. 10. Thus, in the present case, there was an agreement to the contrary between the employer and the employee and giving of one monthss notice was not necessary. 10. The next argument, which was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that some of the conditions specified in the petitioners appointment order dated April 10,1970 were complied with and as such a notice as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules was necessary. It is not the case of the petitioner that persons declared surplus by the Absorption Committee or trained persons holding the Patwar School Certificate were not available, but the emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the fact that the persons, who have replaced the petitioner and other similar temporary Patwaris, were not surplus Amins of the Settlement Department, but were surplus Land Record Inspectors who were reverted and posted as Patwaris. A perusal of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 made under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, goes to show that the post of Patwari is the lowest post in the Land Record Service and the next higher post is that of Land Record Inspector. For appointment on the post of Patwari, the necessary qualification is that the persons should have passed the Patwar School Certificate Examination. Rule 4(c) of the 1957 Rules, which provides the qualifications for appointment on the post of Patwari, runs as under:— "4(c) Persons, who have obtained the Patwar School Certificate shall be eligible for appointment as Patwaris or Additional Patwaris, provided they are not below 18 years and above 25 years of age on the date of appointment. In case passed candidates are not available those persons, who are already in Government service and have not passed the Patwar Examination but have been working as Patwaris, Havaldars, Dafedars or Amins or who have worked in the Survey and Settlement Department for two years as Survey Amins or Patwaris, shall be eligible for provisional appointment as Patwaris. If such, Government servants are also not available, candidates who have passed the Matriculation Examination or the Secondary School Examination or the Higher Secondary (Part I) Examination and can fulfil the condition of age limit may also be provisionally employed as Patwaris. Unqualified persons will be considered for employment only when qualified Patwaris are not available. If such, Government servants are also not available, candidates who have passed the Matriculation Examination or the Secondary School Examination or the Higher Secondary (Part I) Examination and can fulfil the condition of age limit may also be provisionally employed as Patwaris. Unqualified persons will be considered for employment only when qualified Patwaris are not available. They will be discharged as soon as qualified Patwans are available to replace them. If any qualified Patwari is not available in the district, a requisition shall be sent to the Secretary, Board of Revenue (Land Records), through the Commissioner of the Division, who shall maintain a list of all qualified candidates in each district and shall recommend suitable persons of other districts for appointment on receipt of such requisition. The fact that no qualified candidate is available shall be recognised only when the Secretary, Board of Revenue (Land Records) issues a certificate to this effect. All unqualified persons, working as Patwari or appointed as such, shall have to obtain Patwar School Certificate within a period of two years; failing which their services shall be terminated. Provided that— (i) persons who belong to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes as defined in Cls. (37-A and 37-B), respectively, of Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), may be allowed four chances to pass the Patwar Examination. (ii) a person who has worked as a Patwari under the State Government for not less then fifteen years and whose confidential reports are found to be satisfiactory, who has appeared at two Patwar Examinations and failed and who is above forty years of age may be exempted from passing the Patwar Examination." 11. Thus, an unqualified person can be appointed as a Patwari when qualified persons are not available and as soon as qualified Patwaris are available to replace them, the unqualified Patwaris are to be discharged. Moreover, it has been provided that unqualified persons appointed as Patwaris shall have to obtain the Patwar School Certificate within a period of two years, failing which their service was to be terminated. However, in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes four chances can be allowed to pass the Partwar School Certificate Examination. Moreover, it has been provided that unqualified persons appointed as Patwaris shall have to obtain the Patwar School Certificate within a period of two years, failing which their service was to be terminated. However, in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes four chances can be allowed to pass the Partwar School Certificate Examination. It may be noted that under rule 30 of the 1957 Rules, Land Revenue Inspectors can be promoted from the staff of Revenue, Land Records, Settlement and Irrigation Departments subject to the condition that the person has passed the regular Patwar Training Examination conducted by the Land Records Department, Raj. or by any convenant-ing State, besides other qualifications prescribed for the post. Thus, the passing of a Patwar School Certificate Examination or Patwar Training Examination is necessary for appointment on a substantive post of Patwari as well as that of a Land Record Inspector or by promotion. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Land Record inspectors who have been reverted and posted as Patwaris and for whom the petitioner had to make room on account of dispensing with of his services were not qualified for appointment as Patwaris. The petitioners has not produced the copies of the order dated November 7, 1973 and November 12, 1973 issued by the Collector, Barmer by which the former Land Record Inspectors were reverted and posted as Patwaris. In the absence of any averment by the petitioner, there is no reason to doubt that the surplus Land Record Inspectors, who were reverted and posts as Patwaris, possessed the necessary minimum qualification of holding the Patwar School Certificate. Such persons would fall under the last category mentioned in the order of appointment of the petitioner dated April 10, 1970. If persons qualified to be appointed as Patwaris have been reverted from the posts of Land Record Inspectors and were posted as Patwaris, then it is but natural that the junior-most persons temporarily appointed as Patwaris should make way for the reverted personnel. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that the condition specified in the appointment order of the petitioner dated April 10, 1970 was fulfilled and no notice, as envisaged in sub-rule(1) of Rule 23-A. was required to be served upon the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that the condition specified in the appointment order of the petitioner dated April 10, 1970 was fulfilled and no notice, as envisaged in sub-rule(1) of Rule 23-A. was required to be served upon the petitioner in the present case. The mere intimation by the Collector, Barmer to the petitioner to the effect that on account of surplus personnel being available, the junior most persons temporarily working as Patwaris, including the petitioner, must make way was sufficient. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect cannot be accepted. 12. It was also stated at the Bar by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner was given four chances to pass the Patwar School Certificate Examination. He availed of only one of those chances, but failed and he did not appear in the subsequent three examinations. The averment of the petitioner in this behalf is extremely vague although he has stated as a matter of law that persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste should be given four chances for passing the Patwar School Certificate Examination but he has not stated that four chances were not made available to him for passing the said examination. On the other hand, the petitioner merely stated that he had not so far availed of as many as four chances. If four opportunities to appear at the Patwar School Certificate Examination were offered to the petitioner but he failed to appear and availed of only one opportunity so offered to him. it would be held that the remaining chances were lost by the petitioner. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, the petitioner failed in the Ist examination held in the year 1970, but thereafter he failed to appear at the subsequent four Patwar Examinations, which were held during the three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be argued on behalf of the petitioner that four chances were not afforded to him. 13. The last argument which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted was that there was a reservation of posts in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. According to the petitioner, there were about 228 posts of Patwaris in Barmer District and only 12 persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes were holding the posts of Patwaris. 13. The last argument which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted was that there was a reservation of posts in respect of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. According to the petitioner, there were about 228 posts of Patwaris in Barmer District and only 12 persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes were holding the posts of Patwaris. But the circular issued by the State Government provides that minimum 12-1/2 % vacancies in the Govt. service should be reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and the percentage has been raised vide notification dated April 7, 1970 to 28%. Thus, it is apparent that the reservation is in terms of vacancies occurring in the cadre of Patwaris and not with respect to the total numbers of posts of Patwaris in the State or the District. The petitioner has not disclosed as to how many vacancies in the cadre of Patwaris has occurred since the petitioner was temporarily employed as Patwari by the order of the Collector, Barmer dated April 10, 1970 and how many persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes have been appointed on such posts. In the absence of requisite material in this respect, it is not possible for this Court to accept the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. The ordinary rule is that when persons working on higher posts are reverted and there are limited number of posts in the cadre, the junior-most persons should make room for the reverted personnel and it appears to be proper that the service of the junior-most Patwaris, including the petitioner, has been dispensed with by the Collector, on the reversion of surplus Land Record Inspectors and they were posted as Patwaris. It is not the case of the petitioner that persons junior to him are still working on the posts of Patwaris. As has been mentioned in the order of the Collector, Barmer dated November 14,1973 the service of junior most untrained temporary Patwaris was terminated and so in the present case there appears to be no invalidity attached to the termination of the service of the petitioner by the order of the Collector, Barmer. 15. No other point was argued before me. 16. In the result, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.