JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 24-6-1987 contained in Annexure V attached with the writ petition. He has also prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of the entire salary to the petitioner. There after general reliefs have been claimed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in U. P. State Road Transport corporation in the year 1977. He was suspended on 5-7-1985. There after he was removed from service by the District Regional Manager, Karvi, Depot, Banda. Aggrieved by the order of the removal, the petitioner has approached this court and the order of removal was quashed by this court through Annexure I dated 11-9-1986 on 30-3-1987 a circular was issued which is Annexure II attached with the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular, the petitioner had given an undertaking in writing on 13-4-1987 whereby he agreed to forego the arrears of his salary. The undertaking given by the petitioner is Annexure III to the present writ petition. Though Annexure IV, dated 16-4-1987 the petitioner was taken in service. Since then the petitioner had been discharging his duties sincerely. It appears that the petitioner has been put out of job due to Annexure V attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by Annexure V dated 24-6-1987 the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the constitution. There is no serious dispute between the parties about the facts involved in the present case. According to the petitioner he has been given a fresh appointment on 16-4-1987 through Annexure IV. According to the counsel for the opposite parties the petitioner has been given a job due to the order passed by the High Court contained in Annexure I attached with the writ petition. When the basis of the judgment of the High Court has been obliterated no exception can be taken to Annexure V attached with the writ petition and the present writ petition should be dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and on this ground also, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 3. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and on this ground also, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 3. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that according to sub-clause (2) of Annexure RA I, the action of the opposite parties putting the petitioner out of job cannot be sustained as Annexure RA I emphasizes that the direction contained in sub-clause (1) would not affect the circular dated 30-3-1987. 4. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, we find some contradiction in Annexure RA I attached with the writ petition wherein following is the part of direction no. 1 : ".........Evam tadsambandhi adhikarita na hone ke adhar par nyayalaya adhikaran adhi dwara parit sahib adeshon ko mishprabhawi bana diya gaya hai." The ordinance of the year 1987 mentioned in Direction 1 of RA I has been upheld by this Court as valid. In sub-clause (2) of RA I it has been indicated that the Circular dated 30-3-1987 would not be affected by the Direction no. 1 contained in Annexure RA I. In this view of the matter the following contents of Annexure V attached with the writ petition do not appear as correct to us. ".........Atah ukt pariprekshya me parit adhesh sankhya sa. kshe, PR, banda, anu, 185......498, dinank 27-12-1985 yathavat raha tatha adesh sankhya J. R/Stha/Anu. 185-4274 dinanak 16-4-1987 dwara parit adesh swatah nishprabhavi ho gaya." 5. To our mind, the relevant authority in Annexure V has failed to consider the undertaking given by the petitioner in pursuance whereof he was appointed on 16-4-1987 as indicated in Annexure IV attached with the writ petition. The bare perusal of Annexure V dees not indicate that the authority has applied its mind to this aspect of the matter that the petitioner got service after foregoing his salary for some period. Annexure V attached with the writ petition also does not appear to have taken into account sub-clause (2) of RA I attached with the rejoinder affidavit. To us, there appears vapueness and contradiction in Annexure V whereby the petitioner has been put out of job. 6. Annexure V attached with the writ petition also does not appear to have taken into account sub-clause (2) of RA I attached with the rejoinder affidavit. To us, there appears vapueness and contradiction in Annexure V whereby the petitioner has been put out of job. 6. In para, 22 of the writ petition the petitioner has attached Annexure V on the ground that he has been put oat of job without any disciplinary proceedings or any charge and as such the same is wholly illegal and unwarranted. The afore aid paragraph has been replied through para 18 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been emphasised that the earlier order of removal dated 27-12-1985 has become valid, therefore, no question of giving any opportunity to the petitioner arises in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our opinion, the stand of the opposite parties in para 18 of the counter affidavit is not correct. When on 16-4-1987 the petitioner was put in service after an undertaking was given by him, it was but proper and reasonable on the part of the opposite parties to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner before putting him out of job. We think that the order putting the petitioner out of job without affording an opportunity to him is wholly illegal, void and against the principle of natural justice. It is proper to mention here that even if an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no absolute rule that the writ petition cannot be entertained. The question of alternative remedy and exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the constitution is dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case we do not agree with the counsel for the opposite parties that the writ petition should be thrown out on the ground of alternative remedy. 7. For the foregoing discussions, we think that Annexure V whereby it has been indicated that the order dated 16-4-1987 appointing the petitioner has become ineffective is patently wrong, illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also emphasized that due to some contradiction in Annexure RA I, as indicated above, the direction in Annexure V attached with the writ petition to the effect that the order dated 16-4-1987 has become inoperative appears to us incorrect in law and deserves to be quashed. It is also emphasized that due to some contradiction in Annexure RA I, as indicated above, the direction in Annexure V attached with the writ petition to the effect that the order dated 16-4-1987 has become inoperative appears to us incorrect in law and deserves to be quashed. The writ petition succeeds and the impugned Annexure V dated 24-6-1987 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in service and make payment to him as admissible and permissible in law. It would be open to the respondents to consider the question of retaining the petitioner in service hereafter by giving fair opportunity to him to establish his claim based on the undertaking given on 13-4-1987 in pursuance whereof he was appointed on 16-4-1987. The respondents will also consider the contradictions contained in Annexure RA I as pointed out above and thereafter examine the claim of the petitioner whether his services can be terminated due to clause (2) of RA I. There would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.