JUDGMENT This is a petition by an employee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Neemuch against his removal from service. Though a claim for regularisation of the petitioner's services is made in the petition, the principal point is whether he could be removed arbitrarily from service on the ground that he was only daily wage earner whose employment was from day to day. The petitioner's case is that he was employed as temporary Nakedar on 15.4.1988 and continued to serve the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in that capacity till his services were terminated by the respondent No.1 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti through its President on 26.5.1992. The petitioner submits that w.e.f 1.6.1992 the services of temporary Nakedars, respondent No.4 and one Shri Ramlal Rawat were regularised. Out of them Ramlal Rawat was immediately senior to the petitioner and respondent No.4 was immediately below the petitioner in the seniority list. The petitioner contends that he has been discriminated against in as much as his services were terminated keeping his junior in service. The respondent No.1 has filed return mainly taking the stand that the petitioner being a daily wage earner had absolutely no right to continue in service against the wishes of Mandi Samiti. Preparation of formal seniority list is also denied and claim of the petitioner to regularisation has also been refuted. We have heard Smt. Shubhada Waghmare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.L. Sethi, the learned counsel for respondent. A perusal of the provisions of M.P.Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Act') under which the respondent No.1 Mandi Samiti is established would leave no doubt that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is under the Control of the State Govt. and is in fact an instrumentality of the State. It cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in violation of the fundamental rights of its employees. Despite this, the Mandi Samiti has taken a brozen-faced stand that it can hire and fire its employees at its whim and caprice and the petitioner being employed on daily wages had no right to continue in employment against the wishes of the Mandi Samiti. The Supreme Court, as long back as in 1973, in The Manager, Government Branch Press and others v. D.B. Belliappa ( AIR 1979 SC 429 ) had turned down a similar argument in case of temporary Govt. The Supreme Court, as long back as in 1973, in The Manager, Government Branch Press and others v. D.B. Belliappa ( AIR 1979 SC 429 ) had turned down a similar argument in case of temporary Govt. Servant refusing to accept the contention that Art.14 and 16(1) of the Constitution have no application, whatever, to the case of temporary employees whose service is terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service because the tenure or the duration of the employment of such an employee is extremely precarious being dependent upon the pleasure and descretion of the employer State. The Supreme Court held that the protection of Art.14 and 16(1) will be available even to such a temporary Govt. servant if he has been arbitrarily discriminated against and singled out for harsh treatment in similarly situated circumstance. In our opinion the same reasonings applies to the employment of daily wage earners employed by instrumentalities of the State. In the present case clearly a charge of retaining a junior has not been effectively repelled. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner was discriminated against by being thrown out of service while his junior, similarly situated, having the same precarious tenure, as daily wage earner, was not only continued in service but was later on regularised w. e. f 1.6.92 within a week of termination of the service of the petitioner. It is extremely arbitrary and the action appears to be mala fide and capricious and, therefore, violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition and direct that respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service w. e. f 1.6.1992. This shall be done within two months from today. The petitioner shall be paid by the respondent No.1 the arrears of pay on the basis of pay last drawn for the period upto 30.5.92 and pay due on regularisation w.e.f 1.6.1992. The respondent No.1 shall also pay the cost of this petition which is quantified at Rs.1,500/- to the petitioner.