JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated August 21, 1982 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. V, Lucknow, rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner under the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act. The claim petition was directed against an order dated August 27,1975 terminating the services of the petitioner as a Lower Division Clerk. 2. The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis a Lower Division Clerk on July 27, 1964 in the Labour Department by the Employment Officer. The petitioner continued in uninterrupted service until August 27, 1975 when his services were terminated. It is asserted that the petitioner's name was included in the list of Lower Division Clerks who were approved for confirmation on the post as per the Government Order No. BES/0903/86/3242, dated April, 26, 1975. However, by an order dated August 23; 1975 the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that his services were no longer needed and that on the expiry of one month from the date of notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof his services will be deemed to be terminated. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a claim petition under Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act. The order of termination was assailed on several grounds. It was alleged that the order of termination was actuated by malice and ill will and though the order appeared to be innocuous on its face it was really passed by way of punishment. No opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to show cause against the allegations on the basis of which his services were terminated. It was also asserted that the adverse entries and material which formed the basis of the order were not communicated to him. 3. The claim was contested by the respondents who asserted that the petitioner was a purely temporary hand and his services were liable to be terminated by a month's notice. The petitioner had been awarded adverse entries for the years 1967-68 to 1972-73. The petitioner's name was not approved for confirmation and he was not confirmed because of bad entries awarded to him from time to time. No stigma was implied in the impugned order of termination. Allegations of mala fide were also emphatically denied. The petitioner had been awarded adverse entries for the years 1967-68 to 1972-73. The petitioner's name was not approved for confirmation and he was not confirmed because of bad entries awarded to him from time to time. No stigma was implied in the impugned order of termination. Allegations of mala fide were also emphatically denied. The plea that the principle of `last come first go' was not attracted to the case inasmuch as the petitioner's services were being terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work and performance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only one point before me. The submission was that in terms of the Government Order dated April 26, 1975 the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed. Particular emphasis was laid by the learned counsel on paragraph 4 of the Government order a true copy of which has been annexed to the petitioner as Annexure 2. This clause provides that before confirming the employees the appointing authority should examine his character roll of last five years and, if it was found that the last three years' entries were continuously good and his work and character were found to be satisfactory, there should be no difficulty in confirming the employee. However, if the entry for the year 1972-73 is found to be unsatisfactory consideration of his case for confirmation should be deferred for a year and it is only after watching his performance for another year that his confirmation should be considered. 5. In the present case, it was pointed out by the respondents before the Tribunal that the entries of the petitioner from the years 1967-68 to 1972-73 were bad. Nothing has been stated as regards the entries for the years 1973-74 and 74-75. In the absence of any material on the record, it is not possible to hold that the entries for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were also adverse. All that we can say is that the entry for the year 1972-73 which has been examined by the Tribunal was adverse. If therefore, the entries for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 are found to be unexceptionable then in terms of paragraph 4 of the Government Order referred to above the respondents should have awaited the entry for the year 1975-76 also before terminating the services of the petitioner. The policy behind the Government Order appears to be clear. If therefore, the entries for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 are found to be unexceptionable then in terms of paragraph 4 of the Government Order referred to above the respondents should have awaited the entry for the year 1975-76 also before terminating the services of the petitioner. The policy behind the Government Order appears to be clear. It is that in considering the case for confirmation the entries of the last five years should be examined, and if it is found that the entries of the last three years are satisfactory, then the employee should be confirmed. However, if in any of these three years the entry is found to be unsatisfactory, the confirming authority should await the entries of the next year rather than terminate his services immediately. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that there is no obligation on the Government to wait for one year if the entry of the employee in any of the three years preceding the date on which his case is being considered for confirmation is found to be adverse. It was urged that the Government can straightaway terminate the services of the employee if it comes across some material which is adverse to the employee reflecting upon his conduct or performance. 6. I am unable to agree. If the services are sought to be terminated on grounds of misconduct it is apparent that Article 311 will have to be complied with. However, if it is decided to terminate the services of the employee on grounds of unsatisfactory work and performance, in my opinion, the authorities shall have to watch the performance of the employee in terms of clause 4 of the Government Order for another year. That seems to be clear intention behind the Government Order. 7. That being so, it becomes necessary to examine the entries of the petitioner for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. If those entries are found to be good the impugned order of the termination would be clearly unsustainable in law in that the services of petitioner were terminated without affording him an opportunity to improve his performance as contemplated by the Government Order. 8. If those entries are found to be good the impugned order of the termination would be clearly unsustainable in law in that the services of petitioner were terminated without affording him an opportunity to improve his performance as contemplated by the Government Order. 8. In regard to the adverse entries prior to the last five years referred to in the Government Order it appears that those entries have to be ignored inasmuch as in terms of the Government Order the criteria has to be confined to the entries of the last five years only while considering the cases for confirmation. The old entries cannot hence be used against the petitioner for terminating his services. 9. The Tribunal will, therefore, consider the case afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. It will be open to the parties to produce such material before the Tribunal as may be relevant in the light of the observations made in this judgment as well as keeping in view the Government Order referred to above. 10. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of mala fides as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India appears to be correct and does not call for any interference. The same shall not be open to review upon remand the case to the Tribunal. The enquiry before the Tribunal shall be confirmed to the specific issue which has been mentioned above. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. V dated January 28, 1982 is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition afresh according to law having regard to the observations made in this judgment. There will be no order as the costs.