JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - Aggrieved by an order of termination of his services the petitioner has preferred this writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before formal admission of the case appearance on behalf of opposite-parties I and 2 has been put in through a counsel. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the opposite-parties in reply where of the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we propose to dispose of the writ petition finally. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Sales Officer by the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. in January, 1970. In April, 1971 the petitioner was promoted in the higher grade of Assistant Sales Officer. The posts of Assistant Sales Officer (in the higher grade) were re designated as District Sales Officer sometime in 1983. The petitioner thus also came to be designated as District Sales Officer. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that a proposed seniority gradation list was published containing the names of 43 District Sales Officer in which petitioner's name was placed at serial No. 6. The case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden the petitioner received an order dated 26-12-1985 terminating his services from the post of District Sales Officer. A true copy of the order of termination has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. A perusal of Annexure-5 shows that the services of the petitioner were terminated ;n terms of Rule 23 of the U.P. State Agio Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1984 by giving three months salary to the petitioner in lieu of notice. The order of termination says that the services of the petitioner were no longer required by the Corporation, hence his services were an applied with immediate effect. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory. There are at least 37 persons junior to the petitioner who have been retained in service. It has further been submitted that the petitioner being a regular employee of opposite-party No. 1 his services could not be terminated by giving him three months' notice. There are at least 37 persons junior to the petitioner who have been retained in service. It has further been submitted that the petitioner being a regular employee of opposite-party No. 1 his services could not be terminated by giving him three months' notice. The Rule 23 of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1984 is bad and not binding on the petitioner. It has further been submitted that if there was any thing against the petitioner, then he should have been afforded an opportunity to meet the charges before any order of cessation of his employment could be passed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 , Central Inland Water Transport Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another. An unreported Division Bench decision of this Court has also been placed before us which was given in Writ Petition No. 2482 of 1985, Uma Shanker Sharma v. U.P. State Seed Certification Agency and another. The Division Bench of this Court had placed reliance on a case reported in AIR 1985 SC 722 , West Bengal State Electricity Board and anothers v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and others. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-parties has submitted that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with as his work was not satisfactory and was found unsuitable for the job. It has also been submitted that the decisions of the Supreme Court, mentioned above, are not applicable as they relate to permanent employees of the establishment concerned, whereas in the present case the petitioner was not a permanent employee. This has, however, not been denied on behalf of the opposite-parties that the petitioner was a regular employee. 6. The main question which has to be examined in this case is whether Rule 23 of U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1984 is valid condition of service and binding between the parties. Rule 23 provides as follows : "23. 6. The main question which has to be examined in this case is whether Rule 23 of U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1984 is valid condition of service and binding between the parties. Rule 23 provides as follows : "23. (1) Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing between the Corporation and the regular employee, an employee may resign from the service of the Corporation at any time on giving to the Corporation at least 3 months notice in writing of his intention to do so or on payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of salary for the period of notice, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the said period of three months. (2) Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing between the Corporation and the Regular Employee, the Corporation shall be entitled to terminate the services of an employee without assigning any reason on giving him not less than 3 months notice in writing or on payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of salary for the period of notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the said period of 3 months. (3) The services of employees other than regular employees can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason by giving him one month notice or pay and allowance in lieu thereof. (4) No such notice or pay in lieu thereof as aforesaid, will be required to be paid where the service of an employee is terminated by way of punishment for an act of misconduct or where an employee retires on attaining the age of retirement of superannuation." 7. Under the General Service Rules two words 'Regular employee: and 'Temporary employee' have been defined. Rule 2 (xvii) provides as follows : " 'Regular employee' means an employee whose employment by the terms of his engagement is terminable by three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof or who has been made regular by the order of the competent authority against a sanction post without limit or time under the Corporation". 8. Rule 2 (xvii) provides as follows : " 'Regular employee' means an employee whose employment by the terms of his engagement is terminable by three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof or who has been made regular by the order of the competent authority against a sanction post without limit or time under the Corporation". 8. Whereas Temporary employee has been defined under clause (xviii) of Rule 2 as follows : " 'Temporary employee' means an employee whose appointment in accordance with the terms of his engagement is made terminable by one month's notice on either side or pay in lieu thereof". 9. From the above it is clear that the word confirmed or permanent employees has not been used in the service rules by the opposite-parties. There are only two categories of employees namely temporary and the other regular employees. This leaves hardly any doubt in our view, that regular employees have status of permanent employees of the Corporation. Their services have been made terminable without assigning any reason by giving them three months' notice, whereas temporary employees have to be given only one month's notice for termination of their services. We therefore, find no force in the contention raised on behalf of the opposite-parties that the cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above will have no application inasmuch as they relate to permanent employees of the establishment concerned. In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation (supra), the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation was empowered to terminate the services of permanent employee by giving him three months notice in writing or lieu thereof to pay him equivalent to three months basic pay and dearness allowance. Similarly, in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra), the Regulation under challenge provided for termination of the services of the permanent employee of the Board without assigning any reason on giving him three months' notice or payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu there of. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases referred to above, has held that such a rule was totally arbitrary as it invested power in the authority which was capable of vicious discrimination. In Bandlm Desh Ghose case (supra), the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that it is a naked hire and fire rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases referred to above, has held that such a rule was totally arbitrary as it invested power in the authority which was capable of vicious discrimination. In Bandlm Desh Ghose case (supra), the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that it is a naked hire and fire rule. In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that such a rule is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable unfair and shocking to the conscience. Such a rule has also been held to be against public policy. The other unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Uma Shanker Sharma deals with the provision of Service Rules of U.P. State Seed Certification Agency which also used the word regular employee. We find that the present case is squarely covered by the decision referred to above. That being the position we hold that clause (2) of Rule 23 of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules. 1984 is not binding upon the petitioner. 10. Since we have found that the services of regular employee of opposite-party No. 1 could not be terminated by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof taking resort to the provisions of Rule 23(2) of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. General Service Rules, 1984, the order of termination is bad, therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the other submissions made on behalf of the opposite-parties that the services of the petitioner were terminated by a simple order of termination as the petitioner was not considered suitable to be retained in service any more. 11. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of termination passed terminating the services of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-5 to the when petition. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service/with all the benefits. There will be no order as to costs.