JUDGMENT K.P.Sing, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9-6-1989 (Annexure IV) passed by the respondent no. 3 Joint Director, Technical Education (Eastern Region), Varanasi (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents/opposite parties not to interfere with the working of the- petitioner on the post of Office Draftsman Mechanical Government Polytechnic, Basti, (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 3 from terminating the services of the petitioner; (iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Draftsman Mechanical in the Government Polytechnic, Basti on 4-11-1987 and he joined his post on 11-11-87 (see Annexure 1 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner his work was satisfactory and the Principal of the institution gave him additional charge of security and sanitary arrangement. He has also placed reliance upon the G. O. contained in Annexure III attached with the writ petition for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has asserted that there are five zones in the state and for every zone., there is a joint Director who is the appointing Authority for the post over which the petitioner was employed. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that similar employees of other rones are continuing in service. The petitioner has also characterised the Impugned order terminating his services as illegal and without jurisdiction as the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is entitled to the benefits provided by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been suggested that the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are likely to oblige another ad-hoc appointee and with that end in view the termination of the petitioner's services is wholly illegal and unwarranted. The claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the opposite parties through a counter affidavit of Shri Shiv Bachan Ram, an Assistant Lecturer of the Government Polytechnic, Basti. 2 and 3 are likely to oblige another ad-hoc appointee and with that end in view the termination of the petitioner's services is wholly illegal and unwarranted. The claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the opposite parties through a counter affidavit of Shri Shiv Bachan Ram, an Assistant Lecturer of the Government Polytechnic, Basti. The main contentions raised in the counter affidavit are that the petitioner was an ad-hoc appointee so he has no right for the post. Being a temporary appointee bis services have been rightly terminated through the order dated 5/9-6-1989, contained in Annexure IV. It has been asserted that no draftsman has been appointed in place of the petitioner, therefore, the contention of the petitioner, regarding another adboc appointment is wrong and not tenable. Various other pleas have been raised as would be evident from the perusal of the counter-affidavit. 3. By way of rejoinder the petitioner has tried to refute the contention raised on behalf of the contesting opposite parties and has reasserted the allegations made in the writ petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we think that this writ petition deserves to be allowed on short ground. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that similarly placed employees as the petitioners, are continuing in service in other zones. Vide para 7 of the counter affidavit the content of para 7 of the writ petition have been replied in the following words :- "That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition relate to the other zones and the same is not replied. It is stated that in the Government Polytechnic, Basti, no other person is working on the post of draftsman on ad hoc basis." The contents of paragraph 5 of the writ petition have been admitted by the deponent of the counter-affidavit through para 5 of the counter affidavit which indicates that all the zones in the State are under the opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition i.e. Director of Technical Education U. P., Kanpur. Under Article 14 of the Constitution the action of the opposite" parties holding public post should be fair and reasonable and should not smack of arbitrariness. 2 in the present writ petition i.e. Director of Technical Education U. P., Kanpur. Under Article 14 of the Constitution the action of the opposite" parties holding public post should be fair and reasonable and should not smack of arbitrariness. In the preseut case, it is evident that the services of petitioner have been terminated only on the ground that the petitioner was a temporary employee and could be terminated in accordance with the order of appointment contained in Annexure 1'. Annexure 1 reads as below :- "Niymit chayan athwa anya byavastha athwa agami adesh (jo pahle ho) tak ke liye pupntayah asthai rup se Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, Putra Shri Dharmdev Singh, Gram Adampur, Post Chauranwa, Janpad Ballia ki Niyukti Rajkiya Polytechnic Basti en rikt office Draftsman (mechanical) ke pad vetan man Rupye 470-735 Moll Vetan Rs. 470- prati mah evam anya deya Mahengat Bhatta Sahit par ki jati hai. Shri Chandra Bhan Singh bhali bhanti avgat rahen ki unki yah niyiukti purnatayan aothai eavm uparyickt sharton ke antargat kishi bhi samay bina notice athwa karan bataye samapt ki ja sakti has. Yah bhi ispasht rahe ki niymit chayan athwa anya vyavastha. One pay yeh niyukti swatah sampat ho jayegi. In prat bandhon ke Antargat Shri Chandra bhan Singh is adesh ke nirgat hone ke 15 din ke andar (sic) grawan kar saktehain." 5. From a perusal of the above order it appears that the petitioner was appointed on a vacant post of draftsman (mechanical) and the condition was that he would continue in service till one is appointed by the selection committee or any other arrangement is made for the post or till any further order which ever is earlier. No doubt according to annexure 1 the petitioner's" services could be terminated without any notice or indicating any reason but the minimum required of the opposite parties is to observe the rule of fair play specially when all the zones in the State are under the opposite party no. 2 in this case. There should be some justification in terminating the services of the petitioner and retaining the persons in other zones on similar posts. To our mind, the action of the opposite party no. 3 in terminating the services of the petitioner smacks of arbitrariness and does not conform to the rule of fair play. 2 in this case. There should be some justification in terminating the services of the petitioner and retaining the persons in other zones on similar posts. To our mind, the action of the opposite party no. 3 in terminating the services of the petitioner smacks of arbitrariness and does not conform to the rule of fair play. FROM a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is not clear that the post of draftsman (mechanical) is no longer needed in the zone specially when the petitioner was appointed on a vacant post of draftsman (mechanical) and similarly situated other persons are continuing on the posts in other zones which are under the supervision of the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, we think that the impugned order, contained in Annexure IV, suffers from patent error of law and does not conform to the rule of fair play and is arbitrary qua the petitioner specially when similarly situated persons are continuing in service in other zones and the deponent of the counter affidavit has not controverted the allegations of the petitioner in the writ petition in this regard. We think that the ends of justice would be met in the present case by quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure IV and directing the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner observing the rule of fair play and giving cogent reasons for retaining the services of similarly situated persons in other zones. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all other pleas raised in the present writ petition before the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 in justification of his claim. The opposite parties shall examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the rulings reported in 1987 AWC (Vol. 1) page 259 and 464, AIR 1987 SC 478 and AIR 1989 SC 1431 . Since the disputed question of fact emerge on the allegations in the writ petition and the counter affidavit we think it proper to ask the opposite parties to decide the claim of the petitioner as they are in a better position to deal with the factual aspects. 6. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, contained in annexure IV attached with the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the opposite parties nos. 6. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, contained in annexure IV attached with the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and grant relief to the petitioner as admissible in law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.