JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - By the order dated 8-10-1982 (Annexure-2 to the petitioner), the Secretary of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Gorakhpur (for short, the Samiti) appointed the petitioner as Chowkidar temporarily. In Para 2 of the said appointment, letter it is stated that his services being temporary are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason either by giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of the notice. 2. Before such appointment, the petitioner was allowed to continue as seasonal peon in the Mandi Samiti from August, 1981 to 7th October, 1982. By the letter dated 1-12-1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition), the secretary referring to the telegram of Mandi Parisbad dated 24-11-1982 and the order of the Chairman, Krishin Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Gorakhpur dated 28-11-1982 informed that the appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled and that he could continue as seasonal peon as he worked until 7-10-1982 as approved by the Additional Director by his letter dated 11-10-1982. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation and also filed Writ Petition No. 9191 of 1984 before this Court which was dismissed directing the authorities to decide the petitioner's representation. The representation was rejected and hence this writ petition. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 1-2-1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition) issued by the respondent No. 3 informing the petitioner that his appointment as Chowkidar stood cancelled, be quashed and that he be reinstated as Chowkidar and that the respondents be directed to pay his arrears of his salary. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Mandi Samiti, it is averred that there was no post of Chowkidar and that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post of Chowkidar and when this mistake was discovered, his appointment was cancelled by the Mandi Parishad whose decision was informed by order dated 1-12-1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition). In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner worked as seasonal peon upto 7-10-1982, he was allowed to continue as such and in that capacity he continued until 13th April, 1986. 6. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner worked as seasonal peon upto 7-10-1982, he was allowed to continue as such and in that capacity he continued until 13th April, 1986. 6. The question for consideration is whether the appointment of the petitioner as Chowkidar made by the order dated 8-10-1982 (Annexure-2 to the petition) was legally cancelled by the letter dated 1-12-1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition) by the respondent No. 3 in compliance with the telegram dated 24-11-1982 of the Mandi Parishad read with order dated 28-11-1982 of the Chairman of the Samiti. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a barrier man in the year 1981 "on daily wage basis". In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that as the petitioner "was working as seasonal workman, therefore, he was to be allowed to continue on that basis. From the letter dated 8-10-1982 (Annexure-2 to the petition) it is amply clear that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the Samiti. Is there any rule that once the petitioner was appointed as a season workman, he cannot then be appointed as a regular Chawkidar? The petitioner may have worked as seasonal workman till 7-10-1982 but that cannot preclude him from being appointed as Chawkidar. It is averred by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit that there is a post of Chawkidar in the Mandi Samiti. No supplementary counter affidavit has been filed to controvert such assertion of the petitioner. It is implied in the appointment letter (Annexure-2 to the petition) also that there was a vacancy of Chawkidar in the Samiti and, therefore, the petitioner was appointed in that vacancy. Whether or not, there was a post of Chawkidar in the Samiti this fact specifically lies within the knowledge of the respondents. No details of the post of Chawkidar have been furnished in the counter affidavit and thus the contention of the petitioner that there is a post of Chawkidar in the Samiti remains un-controverted. There is no case of the respondents that there was no vacancy on the post of Chawkidor and that all the posts of Chawkidar were manned on 8-10-1982 when the appointment letter (Annexure-2 to the petition) was issued. There is no case of the respondents that there was no vacancy on the post of Chawkidor and that all the posts of Chawkidar were manned on 8-10-1982 when the appointment letter (Annexure-2 to the petition) was issued. That being so, there is no reason not to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed in the vacancy of Chawkidar by the letter (Annexure-2 to the petition). The contention of the respondents that since the petitioner was seasonal workman, he could not have been appointed as Chawkidar has no basis at all. There is no nexus between the seasonal workman and the Chawkidar. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner worked as seasonal Chawkidar till 7-10-1982. Therefore, there was no hindrance in the way of the petitioner in having been appointed in the vacancy of Chawkidar on 8-10-1982. The position would have been different if the respondents contended that there was no vacancy in the post of Chawkidar on 8-10-5982 or that the bye-laws of the Samiti did not permit a seasonal workman to be appointed in a regular vacancy of Chawkidar. This being so the question is that how the appointment of the petitioner as Chawkidar by the letter dated 8-10-1982, (Annexure-2 to the petition) was wrong as averred by the respondents. There is nothing on record to establish such contention of the respondents. It has, therefore, to be held that the petitioner was legally appointed as Chawkidar by the letter (Annexure-2 to the petition). It is averred in para 5 of the counter affidavit that the direction by the Deputy Director in the letter dated 20th July, 1981 (Annexure-1 to the petition) was not mandatory but that simply directed the Secretary who later appointed the petitioner on 8-10-1982 that the petitioner who worked as barrier man but was removed, be appointed in the Mandi Samiti in any vacancy either of barrier-man or otherwise. It was urged that on the basis of the order of the Deputy Director (Annexure-1 to the petition), the Secretary, respondent No. 1 was not under legal obligation to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of Chawkidar. It was urged that on the basis of the order of the Deputy Director (Annexure-1 to the petition), the Secretary, respondent No. 1 was not under legal obligation to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of Chawkidar. From the record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed as Chawkidar by the Secretary respondent No. 3 in compliance with the direction given by the Deputy Director (Administration) to appoint the petitioner in any vacancy either as barrier man or otherwise, The Deputy Director (Administration) did not direct the Secretary respondent No. 3 by the letter (Annexure-1 to the petition) to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of Chawkidar and, therefore, the petitioner's appointment by the letter dated 8-10-1982 (Annexure-2) cannot be said to be a consequence of the direction of the Deputy Director. In para 3 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner worked as peon from August, 1981 up-till 7-10-1982 in the Mandi Samiti. The contention of the respondents is that during that period, be worked as seasonal workman. It is this appointment which can in consequence of the directions of the Deputy Director but not the appointment made by the letter dated 8-10-1982 (Annexure-2 to the petition) after a long time. There is no link between the letter of the Deputy Director and the appointment letter (Annexure-2 to the petition) and, therefore, it cannot be urged that the respondent No. 3 wrongly appointed the petitioner as Chawkidar. 7. From the aforesaid factual position it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was legally appointed in the vacancy of the Chawkidar by the Secretary, respondent No. 3. Can such appointment be cancelled abruptly by the impugned letter dated 1-2-1982 (Annexure-3 to the petition) ? This communication was sent by the Secretary respondent No. 3 in compliance with the telegram dated 24-11-1982 of the Mandi Parishad and of the letter dated 28-11-1982 of the Chairman of the Samiti. The telegram and the letter having been purportedly received from the Mandi Parishad and the Chairman of the Samiti, have not been brought on record and, therefore, it is not known what was their basis directing the respondent No. 3 to cancel the petitioner's appointment. In para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner contends that the impugned order was null and void as that was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner contends that the impugned order was null and void as that was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. By now the legal position is settled that an administrative order involving civil consequences must comply, with maxim, Audi Alteram Partem. In Neelma Misra v. Harindra Kaur Paintal and others, (1990) 2 SCC 746 , the Supreme Court ruled down that for Administrative Officers the duty is not so much to act judicially but to act fairly. The impugned order dated 1-12-1982 (Annexure-2 to the petition) cancelling the valid appointment of the petitioner does involve civil consequences as that takes, away the petitioner's right to continue as Chawkidar and, therefore, the cardinal principle of administrative law enjoin-es upon the respondents to act fairly, justly and reasonably. Before cancelling the petitioner is appointment, the respondents ought to have disclosed the petitioner the reasons for cancelling the appointment and the petitioner should have been given a reasonable opportunity to rebut the reasons, if any, for cancelling to appointment. The case of the respondents is that there was no post of Chawkidar and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been appointed and because the petitioner worked as seasonal workman before being appointed as Chawkidar, he could have continued only as seasonal workman. An opportunity to rebut these reasons must have been given to the petitioner as a rule of fairness before passing the administrative order i. e. cancelling the petitioner's appointment dated 8-10-1982. The impugned order, (Annexure-1 to the petition being in violation of principles of administrative law, deserves to be quashed. 8. It was then urged by Sri B. D. Mandhyan, counsel for the Samiti that the petitioner's appointment was temporary and that as per bye-laws of the Samiti which have been incorporated in the appointment letter (Annexure-2 to the petition), the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof and the petitioner having no right to hold the post, cannot successfully agitate the termination order. No doubt, a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and the services can be dispensed with at any time on ground of unsuitability or in efficiency or misconduct. No doubt, a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and the services can be dispensed with at any time on ground of unsuitability or in efficiency or misconduct. But there is no termination order on such grounds; rather the petitioner's, appointment has been cancelled on specious reasoning that there was no post of Chawkidar to accommodate the petitioner that as the petitioner worked as seasonal workman until 7-10-1982, he could have been appointed only in that capacity and that there was no direction by the Deputy Director to the Secretary, respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chawkidar. Arbitrary and unfair termination order, if any, has to be quashed. The plea of termination simplicitor order in this case is simply to gloss over the arbitrary cancellation of the appointment order. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and, is allowed, the impugned order dated 1-12-1982 (Annexure-3 to the petitioner) is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Chawkidar and to pay up him the arrears of salary in accordance with the law. No order as to costs.