D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of termination of his services dated 30-7-1985 issued by the Secretary, District Administrative Committee, Ghazipur, and also the order passed in appeal filed their against, which is undated and is Annexure 6 to the petition, ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri O. P. Singh. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that in paragraph 21 of the petition, the petitioner das stated that he pressed all his grounds taken in paragraph 9 (a) to (i) of the memo of appeal. The memo of appeal is annexure 5 to the petition and the same contains the relevant grounds. The allegation, as made in paragraph 21 of the petition, has not been denied in the counter affidavit. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petit oner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a regular post on probation for a period of two years, and this point he pressed before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority did not consider it. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this court report in 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1592 (Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. Managing director, U. P. Financial Corporation, and others. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, he submitted that there is no requirement of law regarding approval, and this point he agitated before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority did not consider the same. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1992 (1) UPLBEC 35 (Udai Shanker singh v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Varanasi Region and others)and 1991 (1) UPLBEC 17 (Bhagwan Prasad Sharma and others v. State of U. P. and others ). ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was an ad hoc appointee and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a regular appointment. The order of appointment is filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. It does not speak that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. On the contrary, it clearly states that the petitioner was appointed on a probation of two years, which is the requirment under the U. P. Primary Agricultural co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976. The order of appointment is filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. It does not speak that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. On the contrary, it clearly states that the petitioner was appointed on a probation of two years, which is the requirment under the U. P. Primary Agricultural co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court, in Daman Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 1985 SC 973 ), laid down the principle that if any ground argued was not considered, it would be open to the parties aggrieved to draw the attention of the Court by filing an application for review or clarification. The same principle would be applicable to the authorities acting in a quasi judicial capacity. The authorities under the U. P. Primary Agricultural co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Regulations, 1978, are the authorities which act, while deciding the appeal, in a quasi judicial capacity. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the points as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner or on the points as raised in paragraph 9 and its sub-paragraphs of the memo of appeal. It would be open to the petitioner to convass all the points before the appellate authority, as I am inclined to relegate the petitioner to go to the appellate authority, since the averment in the petition is that the petitioner raised the grounds before the appellate authorities, as are stated by him in paragraph 9 of the memo of appeal, and the same have not been considered by the appellate authority. ( 8 ) THE impugned order passed by the authority indicates that he has not considered and dealt with the points as raised by the petitioner and since in the counter affidavit the allegations are not denied, I propose to allow the petition by setting aside the order of the appellate authority. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the appellate authority (annexure 6 to the petition) is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to deal with the points as may be raised by the petitioner, by a speaking order. A copy of the decision shall be supplied to the petitioner. The appeal shall be decided within a month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. The appellate authority is directed to deal with the points as may be raised by the petitioner, by a speaking order. A copy of the decision shall be supplied to the petitioner. The appeal shall be decided within a month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed .