JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - As the common questions of law and facts are involved in both the aforesaid petitions the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a permanent employeeManager GradeIII (Quality Control), posted at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Agra, has challenged the orders dated May 30,1987 & May 25, 1987, passed by General Manager, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Agra and Chairman, Administrative Committee of the said Sangh, contained in annexures 6 and 7 respectively to this writ petition, by means of which by the first order he was relieved from the said Sangh at Agra in the afternoon of 30th May 1985 and to report at Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Head Officer, at the earliest and by the second order his services were terminated under para 17 (1) and 19 (A) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice period, mainly on the ground that he is a permanent employee having been finally absorbed in service holding a regular post since 1981, in a clear vacancy after due selection, hence his services cannot be terminated without following the due procedure. The orders have been passed in violation of Article 311 and 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It was averred that the Regulations under which the services of the petitioner were terminated do rot apply in the case of the petitioner as the same apply to an employee appointed on probation. On July 24, 1981, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Quality Control), at the Cattle Feed plant, Varanasi and was placed on probation for a period of one year after his joining. It was mentioned in the order that on expiry of the probation he will be confirmed provided the period of probation is not extended by the Federation, at its discretion without assigning any reason thereof. 3. Regulation 17 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees service Regulations, 1975, provides as follows: Probation(1)All persons on appointment against regular vacancies shall be placed on probation for a period of one year : Provided that the appointing authority may, in individual cases, extend the period of probation in writing by such further period not exceeding one year as it may deem fit. Explanation No post shall be deemed as regular has been in existence continuously for the last five years (ii) if it appears at any time before or at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation that a period has not availed the opportunity offered to him for picking up the work or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction directly recruited, be discharged from the service. (iii) A person removed from service during or at the end of period of probation or extended period of probation under clause (ii) shall not be given any compensation unless he is, under mandatory provisions of any law applicable to his case, entitled for the same. 4. The petitioner has alleged that he was appointed on one year's probation which was Hot extended and was satisfactorily concluded. He was never appointed on temporary basis as it is evident from the appointment letter contained in annexurel to the writ petition. 5. On 29th August, 1984, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued Notification no. 1818/XIIDU.vi3(31) promulgating the U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation Milk Union Centralised Service Rules, 1984. Rule 17(1) of the above mentioned rules 1984 provides: The employees of the Federation or Unions working on the managerial posts on the date of enforcement of these rules shall provisionally be deemed to be members of the service. Rule 17(3) of the Centralised Service Rules, 1984 provides : The Committee shall screen such provisionally absorbed employees......in accordance with the qualifications and norms laid down by the Registrar. If, as a result of such screening, a provisionally absorbed employee is not found suitable for final absorption in the service by the committee, his service in the Federation or Union concerned, as the case may be, shall be determined with effect from the date of communication of such decision of the committee. 6. The petitioner has contended that as a result of the screening, the petitioner was finally absorbed in the service. 7. Rule 19 of the said centralised service Rules, 1984, make provision for the training of the member of the service. The petitioner alleges that after absorption he was sent for training at Government expenses, which he completed successfully. 6. The petitioner has contended that as a result of the screening, the petitioner was finally absorbed in the service. 7. Rule 19 of the said centralised service Rules, 1984, make provision for the training of the member of the service. The petitioner alleges that after absorption he was sent for training at Government expenses, which he completed successfully. The petitioner has further stated that his work, conduct and performance has always been appreciated by his superiors, as a result of which he was sent as Manager GradeIll, to Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Agra on 3051987. While he was posted at Agra, he received the impugned orders contained in annexures6 and 7 to the petition. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 indicating the circumstances under which the service of the petitioner was terminated. It is averred in the counter affidavit that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 122A of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh framed Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation and Milk Union centralised Service Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called as Rules) and created Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation and Milk Union Centralised Service (hereinafter (failed as Service,), falling within the area of operation Flood II Scheme, which creates posts of General Manager, Manager GradeI, Manager GradeII, Manager GradeIll and manager GradeIV and different pay scales have been provided under Rules. In the said Rules, provisions have been made for appointment of existing employees working on the managerial post under the Federation and were given option for their absorption in the Centralised service which are a new and different services with that of services under the Federation. Rule 17 of the Rules has given option to give notice in writing to the secretary of the committee for their nonabsorption into the services under the centralised services and the provisions were also made for determination of the services of the employees who had given option for not becoming a member of the services and the persons who had given option for becoming a member of the service were absorbed after being found suitable by the screening committee. Thus by means of Centralised Service Rules, a new service with different nomenclature of post with different pay scales, under the different appointment authorities, was created from the date of the publication of the Rules in the Gazette, i.e. on August 29, 1984 and the petitioner working in the Federation was given option for becoming a member of the New service created under Rules. The Rules provide provisions for framing the service Regulation for regulating the service condition of the employees working in the new service created under the Rules. As the service regulations were in process of having been framed, the service conditions of the employees including the petitioner were governed by U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. Regulation 17 of the Regulations provides the provisions for probation of the employees. The explanation (sic) of appended (2) reads as under: Explanation: No post shall be deemed as regular unless it has been in existence continuously for the last five years. 9. The contention of the opposite parties is that the post of Manager Grade III on which the petitioner was absorbed, was only created in the year 1984 by the Rules itself and was not a regular one as the same was not in existence continuously for the last five years. Hence the petitioner was only temporary employee. As the appointing authority of the petitioner found his work not satisfactory, therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated by means of the order dated 2551987, under the provisions of Rule 19 by making payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice, as provided in the regulation and consequently the petitioner was relieved on 30th May, 1987. It has been contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee and was posted at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited Agra, in May 1987, before his services were terminated. It was denied that he joined the department in 1981 as Assistant Manager (quality control). It has been contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee and was posted at Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited Agra, in May 1987, before his services were terminated. It was denied that he joined the department in 1981 as Assistant Manager (quality control). It was stated that previously the petitioner was appointed on the temporary post of Assistant Manager on probation under the services of Federation but after framing of the Centralised services Rules, 1984 and after creation of new services under the cadre Authority, the petitioner was given option for becoming a member of the Centralised Service and then he was appointed by way of absorption w.e.f. 1591984 on the post of manager gradeIll, under rule 2 (h) on the temporary post of manager grade III which was not a regular post and was only created w.e.f. 1591984 by means of order dated 3111986, a copy of which has been annexed as annexureAl to the counter affidavit. It is denied that the petitioner has put in 6 years of service in the department for the reasons mentioned above. It was specifically stated that the services rendered by the petitioner under the Federation has no relevancy under the Cadre Authority as these are different and independent services and for the purpose of the present dispute, the petitioner's service under the Centralised service, are relevant i.e. from 1591984 when he was appointed on the post of Manager Grade III by way of absorption. His appointment under the Federation has no relevancy as he was again appointed under the centralized service on the basis of his option and his services under the cadre Authority are only relevant for the present controversy. He was never confirmed and no such order was ever passed. He was appointed on temporary post of Assistant Manager under the Federation. It was denied that final absorption under the Rules amount to confirmation. He was never confirmed and no such order was ever passed. He was appointed on temporary post of Assistant Manager under the Federation. It was denied that final absorption under the Rules amount to confirmation. The rules only provide for appointment by way of absorption and the regulations which will govern the services conditions had not been framed so far and not being yet framed and the cadre authority by means of a resolution dated 2091984 has resolved that till the implementation of the new service regulation, the service shall be governed by U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulation 1975, hence under the provision of the service Regulation 1975, the post of manager gradeIII upon which the petitioner was working was not a regular post and the question of confirmation of the petitioner does not arise as the petitioner was only a temporary employee. The termination order is not by way of punishment nor any stigma has been attached to the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has argued that the mention of wrong rule or regulation in the termination order will not vitiate the order. Paras 17 (1) and 19 (A) have wrongly been mentioned in the order but it will not vitiate the order as the services of the petitioner were temporary and the same could be terminated by giving him one month's notice. We find considerable force in this contention. 10. The petitioner's counsel submitted that as the petitioner was finally absorbed in the service as a result of the screening, he would be decreed to be a confirmed employee. 11. This argument is devoid of any substance in as much as absorption means obviously engaged or occupied and hence the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a permanent or confirmed employee. Obviously the post of manager grade III was created in the year 1984 by the rule itself and the said posting was not a regular one and the same was not in existence continuously for the last five years. The appointing authority after finding that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory, was competent to terminate the services of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 19 by making payment of one month's pay in lieu of the notice as provided in the Regulation. The appointing authority after finding that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory, was competent to terminate the services of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 19 by making payment of one month's pay in lieu of the notice as provided in the Regulation. Before coming into force of centralised services rules, 1984 the petitioner undoubtedly joined the Department in 1981 as Assistant Manager on la temporary post on probation but after coming into force of Centralise Service Rules 1984, new services under the cadre authority were created and he was given option for becoming a member of the centralised services and hereafter he was appointed by way of absorption only on 1591984 on t e post of manager grade III which was not a regular post and was only created with effect from 1591984. Hence the contention of the petitioner that he had put in more than six years of service in the department, cannot be accented. The period of his service under the federation has no relevancy as he was again appointed under the centralised services on the basis of absorption and his services under the cadre authority would be relevant for the purposes of this case. No order of confirmation was ever passed and the argument that his absorption under the rules amount to confirmation is fallacious. 12. A division Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 1623/77 in re Ved Prakash v. District Administrator, Registrar, Cooperative Society, Mathura and another reported in 1985 UPLBEC page 787 indicated as under : Regulation 17 provides that all persons on appointment against regular vacancies shall be placed on probation for a period of one year, provided that the appointing authority may in individual cases extend the period of probation in writing by such further period not exceeding one year, as it may deem fit. Its explanation provides that no post shall be deemed as regular unless it has been in existence continuously for the last five years. Regulation 18 further provides that confirmation of an employee shall, on the satisfactory conclusion of the probationary period, be made by the appointing authority, if the post is regular one in terms of the preceding regulation. Its explanation provides that no post shall be deemed as regular unless it has been in existence continuously for the last five years. Regulation 18 further provides that confirmation of an employee shall, on the satisfactory conclusion of the probationary period, be made by the appointing authority, if the post is regular one in terms of the preceding regulation. Its clause (ii) again provides that where a person holding a post not being a regular one has not been treated as on probation in terms of Regulation No. 17(ii), the question of confirmation shall not arise. It is admitted in the instant case the regulations are applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner in the petition has not stated the conditions provided in Regulations 17 and 18 were complied with before he was confirmed to the post of clerk. Since the petitioner has not been treated as on probation under regulation 17 (i) the question of his confirmation on the post of clerk did not arise. For this reason there is no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was not a confirmed employee. Since the petitioner was a temporary employee his termination of service by giving him one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice was a valid termination. 13. In (1985)2 SCC Page 5 in re Dhanjibhai Ramjbhai v. State of Gujarat, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that continuance after completion of probation period does not confer any right on the probationer to be confirmed Absence of any rule regarding manner of extending the period of probation is not indicative of lack of power to grant extension. In the said case the termination simpliciter of the petitioner due to his unsuitability was held to be valid. 14. In view of the above the next submission of the counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner continued to remain in service even after the completion of the probationary period, he would be deemed to be confirmed on the post which he was holding fails. 15. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to justify interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the above mentioned petitions fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. (Petitions dismissed)