JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner in this case, has challenged the order dated 19th Sept.,'86 (Annex 1) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur fur short, "the Tribunal"), of which Shri Ganpat Rai was a member. 2. One of the points pressed before us, is that Shri Ganpat Rai was not a member of the Tribunal on 19th Sept., 86 when he passed the order. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Shri Ganpat Rai was appointed as a member of the Tribunal, vide order dated 19th Sept, 83, for a period of 2 years. Thereafter, his term was further extended for 1 year more, vide another order dated 9th Sept., 85 and therefore, according to the learned counsel his term came to an end on 18th Sept, 86, and thereafter, he ceased to be a member of the Tribunal. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that Shri Ganpat Rai joined his duties as a member of the Tribunal on 21st sept., 83, and therefore his term would come to an end only on 20th Sept., 83 and hence, according to him, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. He also submitted that the Government has issued terms and conditions of his service by a separate order. 4. We have looked into the order dated 2nd Mar., 84, by which the terms and conditions of the services of Shri Ganpat Rai. have been specified- they deal only with regard to pay and allowances, TA, DA etc., and there also, the period has been prescribed as 2 years. The said order does not say that the period of 2 years would start from the date, Shri Ganpat Rai assumes charge as a member of the Tribunal. In view of the appointment-letter dated 19th Sept, 83, Ganpat Rai was appointed for a fixed term of 2 years, which was later on extended for another 1 year. vide order dated 9th Sept., 85. Nettiier these two orders nor the order specifying the terms and conditions say specifically that the term of 2 years would Mart from the date, Shri Ganpat Rai assumes charge as a member of the Tribunal; and therefore in our view, the term of Ganpat Rai came to an end on 18th Sept., 86. vide order dated 9th Sept., 85. Nettiier these two orders nor the order specifying the terms and conditions say specifically that the term of 2 years would Mart from the date, Shri Ganpat Rai assumes charge as a member of the Tribunal; and therefore in our view, the term of Ganpat Rai came to an end on 18th Sept., 86. and so he ceased to be a member of the Tribunal on 19th Sept., 86, and hence, the impugned order (Annex. I) passed on 19th Sept , 86, by Shri Ganpat Rai, as a member of the Tribunal, is an invalid one. The said order was passed by two members, namely, Shri C.S. Goyal and Shri Ganpat Rai. Inasmuch as Shri Ganpat Rai was not a member ceased to be a member of the Tribunal, and since the order could not have been passed by one member sitting alone, the impugned order is not a valid order. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 19th Sept., 86. is hereby quashed. The Tribunal shall hear the appeal No. 326/8, afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******