JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Writ Petition. The petitioner was appointed as LDC on daily wage basis in District Bharatpur on 10.2.89. Thereafter he was appointed in the District Rural Development Agency on 26.10.89 under Mewat Yojna by order passed by the District Collector, Bharatpur. The petitioner was given fresh appointment as LDC for the census work. This appointment was on temporary, basis and the tenure of appointment was to last upto 31.5.91 or till the availability of candidates selected by the R.P.S.C. Service of the petitioner was however terminated on 20:8.90 by an order of Collector which was passed on the ground that candidates selected by the R.P.S.C. have become available. The petitioner has come out with the specific case that candidate selected by the R.P.S.C. has not become available and in fact the petitioner's service had been terminated and one Shri Balkishan Gupta, who was regularly appointed LDC in the Supply Section of Tehsil Office, was given additional charge of the post which was earlier held by the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations to the authorities of district level but did not get any response. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his claim for relief to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of salary between 20.8.90 to 31.5.91. His argument is that the petitioner had a right to continue as LDC in Census work till 31.5.91 because the petitioner was terminated from service without availability of candidates selected from RPSC. Since the candidates selected by the RPSC were not available, the order of termination is not sustainable. The basis on which order of termination is passed is, therefore, erroneous and once it is found that the service of the petitioner has been terminated on wrong premise, the petitioner has a right to continue in service. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed one reply, while Respondent No. 3 has filed another reply. In para 6 of the reply, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated that the order dated 20.8.90 was passed in accordance with law. No prior notice was required to be served on him as the petitioner was not a duly selected candidate from the RPSC. Respondent No. 3 has stated in its reply that para 5 and 6 of the Writ Petition do not require any comment. No prior notice was required to be served on him as the petitioner was not a duly selected candidate from the RPSC. Respondent No. 3 has stated in its reply that para 5 and 6 of the Writ Petition do not require any comment. As is clear from the averments made by the parties and also from Annexure-5, appointment of the petitioner as LDC was for a fixed tenure namely upto 31.5.91. The petitioner has a legal right to continue in service upto 31.5.91. His services could be terminated only if a candidate selected by RPSC became available. The petitioner has specifically asserted that RPSC selected candidates have not been made available but in fact additional charge of the post held by the petitioner was given to Shri Bal Kishan Gupta. This assertion has not been controverted by the Respondents. In the absence of any counter, the respondents have failed to give any explanation to this effect. The petitioner was appointed for a fixed tenure and he had a right to continue on the post till 31.5.91. In this connection I may refer to the judgment passed in Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36 and the same has been followed by this Court in Dr. Umrao Mai Mathur v. The State of Rajasthan 1975 RLW 552 . In view of the settled proposition of Law, termination of service of the petitioner by order dated 20.8.90 is declared unlawful. The petitioner had a right to continue in service till 31.5.91 and since the Respondents have unlawfully deprived the petitioner from his right, the Respondents are liable to pay him salary for the aforesaid period. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the period between 20.8.90 to 31.5.91. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******