JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - The petitioners in all these cases have challenge the order dated 18-1-1980 passed by the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Etawah terminating their services as Co-operative Kurk Amins appointed under the Collector Scheme. 2. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the first circular under which the Kurk Amins were appointed, was issued in April, 1957, by the Registrar, U. P. Co-operative Societies U. P., Lucknow, a copy of which has been field as Annexure CA- 1 to the counter affidavit. The order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, U. P., was communicated to all the Additional District Magistrates Planning, District Planning Officers under the circular dated 8-5-19/8. Under the Scheme in order to release the co-operative dues the officers empowered were authorised to appoint the staff for collection of these dues. The payment of salary was to be made from the account to be maintained in the District Cooperative Bank known as Kurk Amin Salary Account. It was further stated that the circular was being issued with the concurrence of the Development Commissioner. 3. Thereafter the conditions of services of the petitioner and other Kurk Amins were amended and in this connection a circular marked as Annexure 4 to the writ petition dated 8-5-19,8 was issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The appointing authority of Kurk Amin became the Collector of each districts. The salary and conditions of services of Kurk Amin were also prescribed. 4. It appears that the Government found that the Kurk Amins were not recovering enough dues even to pay their salaries. Consequently another circular was issued under which the Kurk Amins were asked to work on a commission basis. Such of the Amins who accepted the conditions were retained in service whereas those who did not accept the altered conditions of services had their services terminated. This termination of services had led to the instant writ petitions. 5. In the case of all the petitioners, the appointing authority is a Government servant. The order terminating the services of the petitioner was also passed by a Government servant. The conditions of services are prescribed under the orders of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. These includes the salary or commission payable to them, the academic qualifications, etc. 5. In the case of all the petitioners, the appointing authority is a Government servant. The order terminating the services of the petitioner was also passed by a Government servant. The conditions of services are prescribed under the orders of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. These includes the salary or commission payable to them, the academic qualifications, etc. 6 The stand in the counter affidavit is that the petitioners are not the Government servants on two basis (i) that these Kurk Amins are not holding post created by the State and (ii) that the salary of none of the petitioners are paid from the Government treasury. 7. The question for decision in this case is whether the petitioner can be deemed to be holding a civil post under the Mate. If they are holding a civil post under the State the order of termination will be bad. 8. It has not been disclosed in the counter affidavits as to whose servants the petitioners are. In other words, the name or description of the employer of the petitioners is not mentioned in the counter-affidavit. 9. The fact that the petitioners are appointed by the officers of the State and the fact that the conditions of service are prescribed by the State and further the fact that the petitioners services had been terminated by the order of the State are sufficient indication of their status as civil servants. 10. The question as to whether a particular person is a civil servant or not has recently been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Raman Lal Kesha Lal Soni and others, 1983 (2) SCC 33 . In Paragraph 27 of the judgment it was observed as follows ; "27. We have to first consider the question whether the members of the Gujarat Panchayat Service of are Government servants. Earlier we have already said enough to indicate our view that they are Government servants. We do not suppose and indeed it is neither politic nor possible to lay down any definite test to determine when a person may be said to hold a civil post under the Government. Several factors may indicate the relationship of master and servant. None may be conclusive. We do not suppose and indeed it is neither politic nor possible to lay down any definite test to determine when a person may be said to hold a civil post under the Government. Several factors may indicate the relationship of master and servant. None may be conclusive. On the other hand, no single factor may be considered absolutely essential, the presence of all or some of the factors, such as, the right to select for appointment, the right to appoint, the right to terminate the employment, the right to take other disciplinary action, the right to prescribe the conditions of service, the nature of the duties performed by the employee, the right to control the employees manner and method of the work, the right to issue directions and the right to determine and the source from which wages or salary or paid and a host of such circumstance may have to be considered to determine the existence of the relationship of master and servant. In each case, it is a question of fact whether a person is a servant of the State or not. Amongst the cases cited before us were Gurugobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal, AIR 1964 SC 254 ; State of U. P. v. Audh Narain Singh, AIR 1965 SC 360 ; State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884 ; D R. Gurushantappa v. Abdul Khudlus Anwar, AIR 1969 SC 744 ; S. L. Agrawal v. G. M. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1978 SC 1150 and Jalgaon Zilla Parishad v. Duman Gobind, Civil Appeals Nos. 24 and 5 of 1968, decided on December 20, 1968. We have considered all of them do not consider it necessary to refer to each of the cases". 11. Applying the test is indicated by the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the petitioners were Government servants and their services were terminated otherwise than in accordance withe law. 12. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed and the impugned order dated 18-1-1980 (Annexure 5 to the writ petitions) are quashed. In view of the interim order of this Court dated 12-2-1980 which ordered that the petitioners emoluments will be suitably adjusted in view of their success in the writ petitions. The petitioners are entitled to their costs.