V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged his removal from service by the respondents vide Annexure P-7 dated 28-2-1990 and Annexure p-9 dated 10-9-1990 Annexure P-7 dated 28-2-1990 is a Circular issued by the Manager of the District Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited, rajgarh (Biora) to all the Branch Managers of the Bank, instructing them to terminate the services of the daily wage worker/process servers engaged in recovery of loans. The reason for such a step as given in the Annexure-P-7 is that no recovery work was possible "at present". However, by circular dated 25-5-1990 (Annexure-P-8) the Chairman of the Bank acting on the directions issued by the Commissioner Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative societies, M. P. , continued the services of the petitioner till regularisation on daily wages as fixed by the Collector. On 10-9-1990 vide Annexure P-9, the petitioner's services ware terminated on the ground that they were not required by the Bank. ( 2 ) , The petitioner has averred in paragraphs nos. 5 to 8 of the petition that he had applied in response to an advertisement by the Bank on 23-1-1987 inviting applications for temporary posts of the clerks/supervisors/assistant accountants etc. The petitioner was called for a written examination for the post of supervisor/clerk. 6n 5-7-1987 the petitioner was interviewed for the selection to the post of supervisor/clerk. According to the petitioner he was successful at the selection but the respondents instead of appointing him in the post advertised put his name in the waiting list and recruited about 20 such person on the posts advertised, who had not appeared at the written test. The petitioner has given the names of three such persons. These specific allegations made in she petition have not been denied at all by the respondents no. 1 to 3 in their return. Actually these allegations have benn admitted by non-traverse by giving an evasive reply that the allegations do not have any connection with this petition and therefore, it was not necessary to answer them. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the return, the respondents do not deny the facts alleged by the petitioner in paras 5 to 8 of his petition. It is, therefore, clear that whatever the petitioner has stated in the aforesaid paragraphs of the petition is admitted as facts by the respondents. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the return, the respondents do not deny the facts alleged by the petitioner in paras 5 to 8 of his petition. It is, therefore, clear that whatever the petitioner has stated in the aforesaid paragraphs of the petition is admitted as facts by the respondents. ( 3 ) IN the aforesaid background, there is no doubt that the respondents, who were admittedly bound to follow the statutory rules framed in exercise of powers under Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to "the Act"), have acted extremely arbitrarily throwing to the winds the procedure devised by the rules for recruitment to the posts of supervisors/clerks. There is no provision in the rules to employ employee on daily wages. On the contrary, the categories in which the employees would be classified have been prescribed by the rules. Appointment as a daily wage earner is not a prescribed category under the rules. Despite this, by order dated 28-1-1989 (Annexure p. 5) the petitioner was appointed as daily wage earner. The callous and cavalier manner in which the appointment is made can be seen from the fact that even the rate of daily wages was not mentioned in the order but it was stated that the appointment was on the rate fixed by the Collector. ( 4 ) ANNEXURE P-7 a Circular dated 28-2-1990 instructing the Branch managers to terminate the services of the stall enagaged in recovery work is also an example of callous disregard for the rules of fair play. Can it be ever countenanced that the Land Development Bank had no recovery work. The Circular states that "at present" recovery work was not possible. On such spacious ground an employee's services cannot be allowed to be dispensed with. It is a clear attempt to get rid of unwanted employees because at the end of this very Circular it is stated that whenever the recocery work starts staff will be provided to the Branches. After termination of the petitioner's services under the aforesaid Circular dated 28-2-1990, by an order dated 25-5-1990 he was again given appointment on the post of daily wages clerk following the instructions issued by the Commissioner Co-operation and registrar Co-operative Societies. He was continued in service up to 10-9-1990 on the strength of this order. After termination of the petitioner's services under the aforesaid Circular dated 28-2-1990, by an order dated 25-5-1990 he was again given appointment on the post of daily wages clerk following the instructions issued by the Commissioner Co-operation and registrar Co-operative Societies. He was continued in service up to 10-9-1990 on the strength of this order. OD 10-9-90 vide Annexure P-9 the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that they were no longer required by the Bank. ( 5 ) IN the return the respondents have taken a stand that the termination of service of the petitioner on 28-2-90 cannot be challenged now as it was not challenged earlier and the order or appointment dated 25-5-90 was accepted without demur by the petitioner. It is also contended that the order dated 25-5-90 ex-facie was issued under a mistake because the order itself stated that in accordance with the instructions it applied to daily wages employees appointed on or before 31-12-88 The petitioner came in services on 31-1-89 and was, therefore, not entitled to the appointment under the instructions of the Government. There is no force in the contention that the termination on the basis of Annexure P-7 dated 28-2-1990 could not be challenged in this petition. Obviously, the petitioner was an underdog and was badly in need of employment. He had, therefore, to succumb to the arbitrariness of the respondents. Moreover, since he was again appointed within a period of three months, he had no occasion to challenge the order after 25-5-90. As regards the order dated 25-5-90 being passed under a mistake, suffice to say, that it is only in the return that this plea has been taken. While terminating the services of the petitioner, it has not been stated in the order Annexure P-9 dated 10-9-90 that the appointment order dated 25-5-90 was being cancelled because it was issued under a mistake. The reason given in Annexure P-9 is that the petitioner's service were no longer required. This is clearly an arbitrary termination of service, which is extremely unfair. Admittedly, while passing the order dated 10-9-90, the respondent no. 1 was the Incbarge of the Bank, the Committee of which had been superseded. The reason given in Annexure P-9 is that the petitioner's service were no longer required. This is clearly an arbitrary termination of service, which is extremely unfair. Admittedly, while passing the order dated 10-9-90, the respondent no. 1 was the Incbarge of the Bank, the Committee of which had been superseded. On the day of the termination of services, therefore, the Bank was clearly under the full control of the State Government and was, therefore, an instrumentality of the State at-least on the day of termination of services of the petitioner. In such a situation, the respondents could not have acted arbitrarily in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Apart from being in violation of the Statutory rules governing the employment of the petitioner, the order of termination of services is violative of his fundamental rights also. ( 6 ) IN the result, the order dated 10-9-1990 Annexure-P-9 terminating the petitioner's services cannot be allowed to stand. It is, therefore, quashed. In the circumstances of the case i t is also declared that the petitioner was entitled to a temporary employment as a cleric in clear vacancy as per the advertisement dated 23-1-1987 (Annexure P-2 to the petition) in the grade of 515-10-575-15-800 or its equivalant at present. He shall be deemed to have been so appointed from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 28-1-1939. The petitioner shall be entitled to salary and other emoluments from the date of removal till reinstatement. He shall also be entitled to arrears of salary also from that date as he has been paid lesser emoluments on account of his appointment as daily wage employee. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service within 15 days of this order and shall be paid back wages and arrears of salary within a period of three months. Costs of this petition will also be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. Counsel's fees Rs. 1000/. Security deposit be refunded after due verification. Petition allowed. .