JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---Rule returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the action of the respondent Government in arbitrarily terminating the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner without any cause or reason while retaining that of others who were appointed alongwith him and were in similar circumstances as the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's case is that by order dated 31st July, 1992 he was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Secretariat on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months with effect from 22nd July, 1992. This appointment was consequent upon his registration in the Regional Employment Exchange in its special scheme of "One Job In a Family" after which he was interviewed for selection of candidates in the temporary vacancies existing in the cadre of L.D.Cs. by a duly constituted Selection Committee sometime in the month of March, 1992. On his appointment to the post of L.D.C. in the Secretariat the petitioner's name was struck off from the live register of the Regional Employment Exchange. The petitioner worked in the post continuously from 22nd July, 1992 to 21st January, 1993 without giving any cause for complaint from his superiors in the discharge of the duties assigned to him. The petitioner states that throughout the period of service rendered by him the petitioner did not receive any memo from his superiors nor any warning in connection with the discharge of his duties. However, on 19th January, 1993 the petitioner was surprised when he was served with the impugned order dated 19th January, 1993 relieving him from the charge of the post of L.D.C. with effect from 21st January, 1993 purportedly on the expiry of the period of six months. The petitioner then vide his representation dated 1st February, 1993 appealed to the Chief Secretary requesting him to revoke the order of 19th January, 1993. However, this appeal was rejected by the Chief Secretary by order dated 13th September, 1993. The petitioner states that his services have been terminated purportedly in accordance with the terms of the offer of appointment. However, the order of termination does not disclose any reasons or grounds for termination. However, this appeal was rejected by the Chief Secretary by order dated 13th September, 1993. The petitioner states that his services have been terminated purportedly in accordance with the terms of the offer of appointment. However, the order of termination does not disclose any reasons or grounds for termination. It was also stated that at the time his appointment was terminated the services of other persons who were appointed on ad-hoc basis subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner were retained though they are otherwise placed in similar circumstances as the petitioner. It was thus the petitioner's case that he has been singled out and discriminated by this order in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Further the petitioner's services have been terminated without assigning any reasons or without giving him any opportunity to show cause while the services of the remaining appointees who are similarly situated as the petitioner have been continued. This act according to the petitioner amounts to arbitrariness and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further stated by the petitioner that after the termination of his services on 21st January, 1993 the petitioner learnt that on or about 31st March, 1993 the respondent appointed some other persons to the vacant post of L.D.C. including in the vacancy caused upon the termination of petitioner's services also on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner stated that it was not open to the respondent to replace one ad-hoc or temporary appointment by another ad-hoc or temporary appointment since this sort of action would be contrary to public interest. According to the petitioner the termination of his services being not by way of punishment since no disciplinary proceedings contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution were held nor any inquiry at all was instituted and even assuming that such termination is punitive in nature the same is in violation of the said provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution besides being violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution. 4. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the termination of the petitioner's services without assigning any cause or reason is arbitrary and amounts to a colourable exercise of power. 4. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the termination of the petitioner's services without assigning any cause or reason is arbitrary and amounts to a colourable exercise of power. It was urged that throughout the period the petitioner served as L.D.C. he has not been served with any warning or notice and therefore, there was no justification to issue the order of termination which is therefore, arbitrary and uncalled for. Further, the fact that the Government retains the services of other persons who were appointed at the same time with the petitioner or even of those who were appointed subsequently shown that the termination of the petitioner's appointment is arbitrary and discriminatory without, however, assigning any reasons for this type of treatment meted out to the petitioner. The further grievance of the learned Counsel is that the respondent has indulged in filling the vacancy created by the termination of the petitioner's service with another ad-hoc appointment which action has been already held as illegal and bad by a decision of this very Court, being thus illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights. 5. On behalf of the respondents no affidavit was filed by the State of Goa. Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Government Advocate, has graciously submitted that he leaves the matter to be adjudicated by this Court on its merits. 6. We have heard learned Counsel and in our view there is considerable substance in the grievance of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner's appointment was made on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months and on the expiry of that period his services were terminated. It is not disputed by the Government that when the petitioner's appointment was made some others were also appointed on ad-hoc basis for other posts of L.D.Cs. and that at the time of termination of the petitioner's appointment the services of other appointees were continued. The positive statement made by the petitioner that not only the appointment of those who were appointed along with him but also the other ones who were junior to him and appointed subsequently were not disturbed has not also been controverted by the respondent in an affidavit in reply. It is further seen that there is no dispute that the vacancy created by the termination of the petitioner's service was filled by the Government appointing somebody else also on ad-hoc basis. It is further seen that there is no dispute that the vacancy created by the termination of the petitioner's service was filled by the Government appointing somebody else also on ad-hoc basis. This action of the Government is clearly discriminatory and arbitrary in utter violation of the decisions given by the Supreme Court including the decision of this very Court in the case of (Joseph Emmanuel v. The State of Goa others)1, 1991(4) Bom.C.R. 31 pg. 36 to which one of us (Silva, J.) was a party. The Division Bench while dealing with the challenge to ad-hoc arrangement in the vacancy created consequent upon the termination of another ad-hoc appointment has held that it is not proper or legal for the Government to switch on for an ad-hoc arrangement to another. The Court observed that this has been repeatedly held to be undesirable and unsustainable in relation to public service. If the holder of the post is not holding it on regular basis attempts should be made to fill it up on regular basis and on a proper consideration of various matters. A dislocating attempt by another ad-hoc or temporary arrangement which is of temporary character is not a solution and such frequent disturbances would be contrary to public interest. Consequently there would be an adverse impact upon the rule of law. It is therefore surprising and we say it with regret that the Government of Goa instead of being fully aware of this decision is continuing to indulge in such types of violation of law in utter disrespect for the decision of this High Court. We only hope that the Government in future will take note that this Court will seriously view such persistent and flagrant violation of the rules of this Court and act accordingly as per law. 7. It is thus clear that in view of this legal position the petition is bound to succeed with all its legal consequences. Mr. Nadkarni, however, has fairly conceded that the petitioner is not going to press for the payment of back wages in case of his reinstatement in service. However he prayed that the continuation of service consequent upon his reinstatement should be taken into account for all legal purposes. We find this prayer reasonable and we are inclined to grant it. 8. In the result the petition is allowed. However he prayed that the continuation of service consequent upon his reinstatement should be taken into account for all legal purposes. We find this prayer reasonable and we are inclined to grant it. 8. In the result the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post of L.D.C. which he was holding right from 2nd January, 1994 on the same terms and conditions prior to his termination. The respondent should grant to the petitioner after his reinstatement all other legal benefits to which he was entitled except with regard to the payment of back wages. Rule accordingly made absolute in the above terms with however no order as to costs. Petition allowed.