JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J. - The petitioner has approached this court feeling aggrieved by an order dated 23-4-1 990 passed by respondent No. I where-under he was removed from service forthwith. Besides praying for the quashing of the order dated 23-4-1990 referred to above the petitioner has sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from appointing any person junior to the petitioner in his place or any person out of the select list. 2. On 19-M991 the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for and was granted a month's time to file the counter affidavit in reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. No counter- affidavit was, however, filed and when the case was taken up again on 2-8-1991 the learned Standing counsel prayed for further one month's time to file a counter-affidavit. By an order passed on that date a further time of one month was granted as prayed for with a stop order clearly indicating that no more time will be allowed thereafter. However, in the interest of justice under the order dated 9-9-1991 this court allowed further time of one month to the learned Standing Counsel for filing a counter affidavit. The respondents did not avail of even, this opportunity and no counter affidavit denying or rebutting in any manner the allegations made by the petitioner was filed by them. Since the petitioner had filed a supplementary affidavit another opportunity was granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit by 6-4-1992 making it clear that in case no counter affidavit was filed by that date the case will be decided on the basis of the averments made in the petition and the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. 3. Inspite of the repeated opportunities having been provided to the respondents no counter-affidavit denying or controverting in any manner the allegations in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner has been filed by the respondents. In the circumstances the facts asserted in the petition and the supplementary affidavit, in the absence of their denial, have to be taken as true. 4. This petition can be disposed of on a short ground. In the circumstances the facts asserted in the petition and the supplementary affidavit, in the absence of their denial, have to be taken as true. 4. This petition can be disposed of on a short ground. From assertions made in the writ petition and evidence relied upon by the petitioner, it is apparent that he has been working as Collection Peon in the Collection Department of Tehsil Biedki, District Fatehpur intermittently since the year 1974 on temporary adhoc basis. It appears that the petitioner was selected for an appointment on the post of Collection Peon in the year 1978 and in the select list prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 7. It has been asserted by the petitioner that, juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service. The petitioner has asserted in para 20 of the writ petition that Babu Ram who is junior to the petitioner continues to be retained in service The name of Babu Ram finds place at Serial No. 10 of the Select List referred to above. It has also been asserted that the work of the petitioner has throughout been satisfactory and that substantive vacancies in the post of Collection Peons are still continuing to exist and many posts are lying vacant. It has been asserted that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and is clearly without jurisdiction. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has alleged that persons junior to him are still in service but the petitioner has been discharged. From the assertion* made in the writ petition it is clear that there is no surplus staff in his cadre calling for retrenchment. These allegations have not been denied at all as indicated above. This court in its decision in the case of Budh Prakask Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1990 AWC page 1000 has held that an order of termination of service of an employee while retaining juniors to him in service is illegal and had being in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This court in its decision in the case of Budh Prakask Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1990 AWC page 1000 has held that an order of termination of service of an employee while retaining juniors to him in service is illegal and had being in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, in its decision in the case of Om Prakash Goel v. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1490 : (1991) 2 UPLBEC 967 (SC) has observed thus : " ..After a careful perusal of the record we are satisfied that the juniors to the petitioner are retained. Therefore, on this ground also the termination order is liable to be quashed " Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances indicated above and the legal position to which a reference has been made above there can be no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order is manifestly illegal and has been passed in clear contravention of the mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed, to the extent it affects the petitioner. 6. In view of the conclusions indicated herein before, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 23-4-1990, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 16 to the writ petition is quashed only so far as it relates to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for his regular absorption and the implementation of the select list prepared in 1978 in which his name finds place at Serial No. 7 and a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, provided the petitioner files a representation in this regard before respondent No. 1 within ten days alongwith the certified copy of this order. The representation if made as indicated above shall be disposed off by the respondent No. 1 by a reasoned order within two months from the date of the receipt of the same by him. There shall be no order as to costs.