Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. In this writ application, the sole petitioner is aggrieved by Office order LVII, dated 12-5-1983 (Annexure-1) by which the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the same was no more required. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 26th June, 1982 he was appointed as a daily wager on muster roll basis under the Executive Engineer of the Bihar State Scheduled Castes Co-operative Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation only). Admittedly, the Corporation is an instrumentality of the State Government and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent Executive Engineer on a regular basis as work-charged Chowkidar in the scale of Rs. 350-425 by letter dated 22nd February, 1983 (Annexure-2), The said appointment letter shows that his appointment was purely on temporary basis and it was liable to be terminated even without notice. It appears that taking benefit of this condition, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 12-5-1983. It is also a matter of record that immediately after termination of the service of the petitioner on 14-5-1983, one Basistha Narain Singh was appointed in the place of the petitioner. Another man Sri Damodar Kumar was also appointed on a similar post on 19th May, 1983. 3. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated that the service of the petitioner was terminated because it was not found to be satisfactory. Neither any reason has been assigned nor any material has been placed before me to substantiate this conclusion. 4. There cannot be any doubt about the legal position that in the case of persons, who are appointed on temporary basis, no enquiry is needed to be held for their termination if during probationary period they fail to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the employer. In this connection, reference may be made to the cases of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah V/s. The Union of India reported in -- and Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Ors. V/s. Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali . But even in such cases, where the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, his actions are to be governed by Article 14 of the Constitution which does not permit of any arbitrary action. V/s. Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali . But even in such cases, where the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, his actions are to be governed by Article 14 of the Constitution which does not permit of any arbitrary action. It has been taken to be a constitutional mandate that even in respect of contractual relationship, the impugned action can be sustained only if it is shown to have been taken on a rational basis and is informed of reasons. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere V/s. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1431. In Paragraph 5 of this Judgment, it has been held that: We must emphasize that in the relationship of master and servant there is a moral obligation to act fairly. An informal, if not formal, give and take, on the assessment of work of the employee should be there. The employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiency in his performance. Defects or deficincies ; indifference or indiscretion may be with the employee by inadvertence and not by incapacity to work. Timely communication of the assessment of work in such cases may put the employee on the right track. Without any such communication, in our opinion, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order to the employee on the ground of unsuitability. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the respondents have acted in an unfair and arbitrary manner in terminating the service of the petitioner. Because of long lapse of time and particulary since no interim orders were passed at the time of admission of this application, I need not quash the impugned order. But it is directed that, if approached by the petitioner, the respondents should provide him a suitable job within a month from the date on which he files the application for seeking the suitable job. Age will be no bar in this respect. 7. It has been stated in Paragraph 17 of the writ application that the petitioner has not been paid any salary for the period 1st May to 12th May, 1983. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Age will be no bar in this respect. 7. It has been stated in Paragraph 17 of the writ application that the petitioner has not been paid any salary for the period 1st May to 12th May, 1983. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, petitioner should be paid his salary for this period with simple interest at the rate of 12% within a month from the date of communication of this order. 8. The application is allowed to the above effect with cost at Rs. 500 to be payable by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner along with the arrears of salary as stated above.