JUDGMENT S. K. Dhaon, J. - In substance, the relief claimed in this petition is that the respondents may be directed to give an appropriate appointment to the petitioner in the treasury of district Mathura. 2. The averments made are these. The petitioner worked a Tahsildar between 9th December, 1985 to 28th December, 1985 in a certain leave vacancy. On 31st December, 1985, the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice money-tester in the Sub-Treasury, Sadar Tahsil of district Mathura. This appointment continued till 29 July, 1986. Petitioner was given an assurance that whenever a vacancy in the Treasury of district Mathura occurred, he will be absorbed in the Treasury. On 20th July, 1986, the petitioner was appointed as a money-tester on a temporary basis as a daily - wager and this appointment continued till 12rd April, 1987. In September, 1986, the State Government took a policy decision of doing away with the Government Treasury Agents. The Government decided to appoint its own hands in the Treasuries. In anticipation of the enforcement of a statutory rules, the State Government, on 27th March, 1987, issued a Government Order in which it was, inter alia, stated that after coming into force of the new rules endeavour shall be made to absorbed the existing Tahsildars/money-testers. On 8th April, the petitioner made an application for appointment as a money-tester in the Treasury of Mathura. However, on 23rd April, 1987, the petitioner received a communication that he could not be appointed. The petitioner was given an honourably appointment on 2nd May, 1987. On 26th June, 1987, the petitioner was appointed as Government Treasury Agent in place of one Ram Gopal Mittal. Even today the petitioner is continuing to function Government Treasury Agent. On 28th April, 1987, the petitioner sent a communication to the District Magistrate, Mathura that, in view of the new rules as as enforced, he may be appointed as a money-tester. No examination for recruitment of money-testers was held, however on 21st July, 1987, the petitioner was informed by the Treasury, Officer district Mathura that certain appointments of money-testers were going to be made, the petitioner was interviewed, a list of the candidates selected was published on 30th July, 1987, but the petitioner's name was missing from it. 3. The Treasury Officer, Mathura, on 1st July, 1987, sent a communication that the Government Treasury, Mathura, had, on 25th June. 3. The Treasury Officer, Mathura, on 1st July, 1987, sent a communication that the Government Treasury, Mathura, had, on 25th June. 1987, terminated the agency of one Ram Gopal Mittal and by letter, dated 26th June, 1987, he had appointed the petitioner as a temporary Agent. Therefore, until further orders the petitioner was continue as Agent of the Government Treasury. A copy of this communication was sent to the Government Treasury, Mathura. In pursuance of this letter, the Government Treasurer of District Mathura, Sri Raghunath Das, executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner, dated 31st July, 1987. The petitioner, as already stated earlier, is still continuing to function as Government Treasury Agent. 4. In State of U.P. and another v. Audh Narain Singh and another, AIR 1965 SC 360 it has been held that a Tahsildar appointed by the Government Treasury held a civil post and he was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. As already indicated, by the communication, dated 1st July, 1987, the Treasury Officer appointed the petitioner as Government Treasury Agent until further orders. Since so far the survive of the petitioner as a Government Treasury Agent have not been terminated, it is premature to make any comment on the status of the petitioner in the background of Article 311 of the Constitution. At present it will be sufficient to indicate that if the authority decides to terminate the services of the petitioner as Government Treasury Agent it shall act strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the U.P. Treasury (Cash Branch) Ministerial Service Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and the Government Order, dated 27th March, 1987, a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 5. Rule 3(1) defines "substantive appointment" to mean appointment not being an ad-hoc appointment, on a post in the cadre of the service, and after selection in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the time being by executive instructions issued by the State Government". Rule 5(1) provides for the recruitment to four categories of posts. They are (1) Chief Cashier, (2) Cashier, (3) Deputy Cashier and (4) Assistant Cashier. The first three have been designated as promotion posts. An Assistant Cashier has to be appointed by direct recruitment. Rule 5(1) provides for the recruitment to four categories of posts. They are (1) Chief Cashier, (2) Cashier, (3) Deputy Cashier and (4) Assistant Cashier. The first three have been designated as promotion posts. An Assistant Cashier has to be appointed by direct recruitment. in Rule 8 the academic qualifications of the post of Assistant Cashier in the case of direct recruitment are mentioned. Rule 5(2) is important so far as this petition is concerned. It may be extracted ; "Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule. - (1) The appointing authority may absorb persons, including Government Treasurers and their agents, working in various capacities in the cash branch of treasuries on the date of commencement of these rules on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the State Government." Rule 16 provides for the appointment, probation, confirmation and superannuation. Rule 16(4) has relevance in the present controversy and may be extracted :- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1), (2), or (3), persons working on various categories or posts on the commencement of these rules may be absorbed in the service or such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Government." The emphasis in Rule 5(2) and Rule 16(4) is that a person must be working in some capacity in the cash branch of the Treasury on the date of the commencement of the rules so as to be entitled for absorption. The rules came into force with effect from 6th April, 1987. We, have, therefore, to find out as to whether the petitioner was working in any capacity on 6th April, 1987. As already indicated, the petitioner has averted that between 30th July, 1986 and 21st April, 1987 he was employed as a daily - wagar money-tester in the Treasury of district Mathura. This averment is to be found in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. If these averments are correct, it is clear than on the date of the enforcement of the rules, viz., 6th April, 1987, the petitioner was working as a money-tester. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 5(2) and Rule 16(4) the petitioner is entitled be considered for absorption as a money-tester. Indeed, the petitioner node such an application on 28th April, 1987 to the District Magistrate, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 5(2) and Rule 16(4) the petitioner is entitled be considered for absorption as a money-tester. Indeed, the petitioner node such an application on 28th April, 1987 to the District Magistrate, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The tenor of the Government Order, dated 27th March, 1987, is similar to the provisions as contained in Rules 5(2) and 16(4). We are not quite sure as to whether the District Magistrate, Mathura, considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforementioned rules and the Government Order and in the background that on the relevant date, namely, 6th April, 1987. the petitioner was working as money-tester. We, therefore, feel that the District Magistrate should consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as indicated above. The petitioner shall make a proper representation to the District Magistrate, Mathura, setting out the relevant facts therein, particularly the fact that on 6th April, 1987, he was employed as a money-tester. The District Magistrate shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law after examining the relevant facts within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certificate copy of the order of this Court by the petitioner before him. 6. We have heard the learned standing counsel, who represents the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, in opposition to this petition. In our opinion, no useful purpose will be served in calling for a counter-Affidavit. We are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of this writ petition finally. 7. With these direction, this petition is disposed of finally.