Hansaria, J. — The petitioner was once a member of the Indian Army. This was in 1969. He was commissioned in 1970 and joined Gorakha Rifles as 2nd-Lieutenant. In 1974, he was promoted as Captain. Thereafter, the petitioner joined 8 Assam Rifles and, in 1977, he was transferred to 5th Assam Rifles. As the petitioner's service with the Indian Army was to expire in 1980, having come to know that a post of Inspector of Police was lying vacant in Arunachal Pradesh Police, he applied for the same in 1975 and came to be selected for the post in June 1979. He was then appointed to the aforesaid post in a purely temporary capacity and until further orders. His services however came to be terminated in January, 1981 under the proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, hereinafter the Rules It is this order of termination which has been assailed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The sole ground on which the impugned order has been assailed is that the Rules have no application to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as at the relevant time he was an employee of Union Territory of Arunachai Pradesh and was not in the service under the Government of India. Sri Sen has strongly contended that services under the Union Territory cannot be regarded as service under the Government of India. 3. The aforesaid submission has been advanced in the background of what has been stated in Rules 1(3) (i) and 2(d) of the .Rules. Let us see what these Rules provide for. Rule 1(3) (i) reads as below :- "1. Short title, commencement and application-(1; These Rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Tem­porary Service) Rules, 1965. (2) . . • • (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule(4) these Rules shall apply to all persons- (i) who hold a civil post including all civilians paid from the Defence Services estimates under the Government of India and who are under the rule-making control of the President but ...-.," Section 2 which is a-defining section has stated that unless there context otherwise require -. "(a) * * * * (b) * * * * (c) * * * * (d) "temporary service" means the service of a temporary government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post under the Government of India." 4. A reading of the aforesaid two rules shows that for the Rules to have application, the holder of the post must be under the service of the Government of India and under the rule-making control of the President. Shri Sen submits that the petitioner being an employee of the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh cannot be regarded to hold a post under the Government of India, nor is he Under the rule-making control of the President. 5. Dr. Singh appearing for the respondents, however, submits that the Rule-making power relating to the persons serving in a Union territory vests in the President. In this connection, reference has been made by the learned counsel to Jaichand vs. Union of India, 1969 SLR 386 and Sagli Ram vs. Union of India, 1975 (2) SLR 379, In Jaichand it was held by the Himachal Bench of the High Court of Delhi that the President of India is competent to frame Rules under the proviso to Article 309 in respect of Union territories. It was further held in this decision that the services and posts in the Union territory are services in connection with the affairs of the Union. In this connection it was stated in para 31 as below :- "The dichotomy in Article 309 is between the affairs of the. Union and the affairs of the States. Under the main Article,. 309; it cannot be denied that Parliament can make law regulating the appointment and the conditions of service of persons appointed or to be appointed in Himachal Pradesh. Under the proviso to Article 309, rules can be framed by President or any person authorised by him m this behalf for persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and by Governor or his delegate for persons solving in con­nection with the affairs of the State. It is impossible to conceive that the Constitution makers who dealt so elaborately with territories like Himachal Pradesh made no provision for regula­ting their services by rules and left it to be regulated only by Legislature. It is impossible to conceive that the Constitution makers who dealt so elaborately with territories like Himachal Pradesh made no provision for regula­ting their services by rules and left it to be regulated only by Legislature. The services and posts in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh are therefore services and posts in con­nection with the affairs of the Union and inasmuch as neither Parliament nor the Legislature of Himachal Pradesh has made any provision regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts in Himachal Pradesh, the case is fully covered by the pro­viso to Article 309 of the Constitution". 6. In Sagli Ram (supra), it was held by referring to Article 239 of the Constitution, which reads as below ; "239. Administration of Union territories-(l) Save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such an extent as he thinks fit, through an Administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify." that it is an affair of the Union to provide for the administration of the Union territories. It is for this reason that the Constitution has, -by Article 239(1) entrusted the President with the Administration of Union territories and has by Article 246(4) empowered the Par­liament to make laws for the Union territories. It was thereafter stated in para 19 : "Both executive and legislative functions have been entrusted by the Constitution to functionaries of the Union. The Cons­titution envisages the administration of a Union territory as an affair of the Union. Consequently, the President acting under the proviso to Article 309, can make rules regulating > recruitment and the conditions of service, of the persons appo­inted to public services and posts in the Union Territories." Shri Sen has not very seriously contested the aforesaid submission Mr. Singh. He, however, submits that for the Rules to apply employees serving under the Union territories it is not enough that the President be capable of making rule with regard to them under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, but it is further required that the Government servant must be serving under the Government of India. Dr. Singh appearing for the respondents has submitted in this regard that the word "and" appearing in Rule l(3)(i) of the Rules must be read as disjunctive and not conjunctive. Dr. Singh appearing for the respondents has submitted in this regard that the word "and" appearing in Rule l(3)(i) of the Rules must be read as disjunctive and not conjunctive. We ate not inclined to accept this submission of Dr. Singh. According to us both the requirements mentioned in the aforesaid Rules Shall hive o be specified before the Rules can be said to apply to persons serving under the Union territory. This is made clear by Rule 2 (d) of the Rules. 8. Let us see therefore whether the persons serving under the Union territory can be held to be serving under the Government of India. For this purpose, it is required to be seen as to when a person can be said to be under the employment of any authority. Ref­erence to the decisions rendered under Articles 102(l)(a) and 191 (l)(a) of the Constitution which have disqualified the Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council inter alia, because of their holding any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any States, shows that the tests to be applied in this regard are power to appoint a person to an office of profit or to continue him in that office or revoke his appointment and payment out of the Government revenue. Reference may be made in this connection to Abdul Sukur vs. Rikhabchand, AIR 1958 SC 52 ; Biharilal vs. Roshanlal, AIR 1984 SC 365 and Ashok Kumar vs. Ajoy Biswas, AIR 1985 SC 211 . 9. We may also refer in this connection with profit to Sardari Lal vs. Union of India, 1974 (2) SLR 311 , which was a case dealing with dispensation of services of some employees of Delhi Police Force. The services had been terminated with the aid of proviso (c) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It was stated in this connection that Delhi is a Union territory and according to Article 239 of the Constitution every Union territory, save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, is to be administered by the President acting to such an extent as he think fit through an Administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. It was, therefore, pointed out that the President has all the powers in relation to Union territories except to extent he delegates them to the Administrator/Being of this visit invocation of the aforesaid power by the President in respect employees of Delhi Police Force was upheld, 10. In this context it would be apposite to refer to the delegation power by Order No. 7/2/72-Ests (A) dated 21st January, 1972 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of India by which the President ordered, in pursuance of the proviso to Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1965 that all appointments to Central Civil Services, Group 'A' and Central Civil Posts, Group 'A', shall be made by Administrator of, the Union territory appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution. This shows that the appointment-making power of the Administrator, with relation to certain (categories of persons, serving under Arunachal Pradesh ,vest with the Administrator as a delegates of the President. We have therefore no doubt in our mind that the power to appoint a person serving under the Government of Union territory and the power to continue him in service or to revoke his appointment lies with the Government of India. It would be useful in this context to refer to section 55 (b) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, which has stated that all suits and proceedings in connection with the administration of a Union territory shall be instituted by or against the Government of India. 11. The aforesaid provisions leave no doubt in our mind that an employee serving manifestly under the Union territory has really to be regarded as serving under the Government of India. This conclusion of ours is fortified by what has been observed at page 197 of 'Constitutional Law of India' Vol. II published in 1986 by the Bar Council of India Trust, wherein it has been mentioned that as the administration of the Union territories is an affair of the Union, an employee of Union territory should also be deemed to be persons engaged in the affairs of the Union. Certain provisions finding place in the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986, also yield the same result inasmuch as it has been stated in section 35 of this Act that every member the Indian Administrative Service etc. Certain provisions finding place in the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986, also yield the same result inasmuch as it has been stated in section 35 of this Act that every member the Indian Administrative Service etc. who before the appointed day was holding any post in the existing Union territory of Arunachal Pradesh shall, until otherwise directed by the Central Government, be deemed to be on deputation on and from the appointed day to the Government of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Section 36 (1) of this Act lays down that every person who immediately before the appointed date is serving in connection with the affairs of the Union under the administrative control of the Administrator shall, unless otherwise directed by an order of the Central Government, be deemed to have been allocated the service as from that date in connection with the affairs of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. These provisions indicate that the posts referred to in the aforesaid two sections were under the control of the Central Government. 12 For the reasons aforesaid, we are not in a position to accept the submission of Shri Sen that the Rules have no application to the case of the petitioner because of which his services could not have been terminated with the aid of the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Rules. 13. The aforesaid being the only submission advanced by Shri Sen, we are constrained to dismiss the petition.We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. S. K. Homchoudhuri, J. — I agree.