KALYANMOY GANGULI, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India Memo No. 404/dev, dated 6th February, 1979 issued by the District Magistrate, Maldah which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, has been challenged. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he applied for the post of Anchal Development Worker sometime in 1973. After the interview the petitioner was informed by Memo. 2422/dev, dated 10th October, 1973 by the District Magistrate, Malda that he was appointed provisionally to act temporarily as trainee Anchal Development Worker with effect from the date of appointment upto 31st March, 1974 subject to satisfactory report of his police verification and medical examination. There are other terms into which I need not go at the moment. On 29th October, 1973 the petitioner submitted the duly filed in verification roll before the concerned Authorities. By order, dated 30th November, 1973 the District Magistrate, Malda posted the petitioner at Gazole Block on completion of training of Anchal Development Work at Gram Sevak Training Centre. The said order of the District Magistrate is annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter D. By the Order, dated 17th December, 1973 of the Principal, Gram Sevak Training Centre, Malda, the petitioner was released from the Training Centre with effect from the same date. Thereafter the Block Development Officer Gazole by his Memo, dated 20th December, 1973 informed the petitioner to impart training to the trainees, Anchal Development Centre and to submit the duty statement certificate to him. A copy of the said Memo has been annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter E. By another Memo, dated 26th September, 1974 the Block Development Officer, Gazole informed the petitioner in partial modification of the previous order, dated 21st September, 1974 and in pursuance of the Memo, dated 21st September, 1974, issued by the District Magistrate, Malda, that the training period of the petitioner had been extended upto 30th September, 1974. A copy of the said Memo has also been annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter F. ( 3 ) ON 20th November, 1976 the petitioner made a representation before the District Magistrate, Malda, praying for furnishing him with a copy of the police verification report. A copy of the said Memo has also been annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter F. ( 3 ) ON 20th November, 1976 the petitioner made a representation before the District Magistrate, Malda, praying for furnishing him with a copy of the police verification report. Not being favoured with any reply the petitioner by his letter, dated 4th October, 1978 made another representation before the District Magistrate, Malda stating, inter alia, that be was falsely implicated in a Criminal Case but was ultimately acquitted by an order of the Learned Sessions Judge. That thereafter by Memo 404 Dev, dated 6th Feb. , 1979 the District Magistrate, Malda informed the petitioner that the Government had considered him unsuitable for employment in Government service. This order has been impugned in this writ petition. ( 4 ) THERE is no return to the rule and go one appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition. In the circumstances the allegations made in the writ petition on oath are to be accepted as such and the allegations are deemed to be admitted by the said respondents by the doctrine of non-traverse. ( 5 ) APART from all other points taken in the writ petition I am of the opinion that regard being had to the period between 10th October, 1973 and 6th February, 1979, the period during which the petitioner was allowed to work in different capacities without having been given any substantive appointment and without any adverse police report, the services of the petitioner, in whatsoever capacity such service was rendered, cannot be abruptly terminated by simply saying that he was found not suitable, for employment in Government service. This sweeping remark not only disentitled the petitioner from discharging his duties in the department from the time he was initially appointed but disentitled him from joining any Government service whatsoever after 6 years of rendering service to the Government. During all these 6 years the petitioner hoped that he would be ultimately absorbed in a permanent Government service and he desisted from seeking employment elsewhere and in fact from the date of passing the impugned Order all the doors of Government service would for ever be closed to him because of the age bar intervening. During all these 6 years the petitioner hoped that he would be ultimately absorbed in a permanent Government service and he desisted from seeking employment elsewhere and in fact from the date of passing the impugned Order all the doors of Government service would for ever be closed to him because of the age bar intervening. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the entirety of the circumstances I am of the opinion that the order impugned in this application cannot be sustained and has to he set aside. It is significant to note that the order does not state in categorical terms as to whether the petitioner was found unsuitable because of his incapacity or because of any adverse police remarks. The petitioner is entitled to know the said reasons after having rendered 6 years of faithful services. The police report, good or bad, is to be furnished within a reasonable time of joining service and such report cannot take into consideration any event subsequent to the date of joining service. Any order passed on the basis of such subsequent adverse report will attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is given leave to communicate the operative part of the order. Rule made absolute.