JUDGMENT 1. - A Selection Board was constituted by the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan for selecting the persons for appointment to the posts of Secretaries, Zila Sainik Boards and the order dated 9.10.1991 (Annx. 1) was issued stating that six persons including the petitioner, who retired from the Army as Lieutenant Colonel were selected for being so appointed. According to this order, the appointment was to be made initially for a period of three years, which could be extended every year till the selected candidates attained the age of 58 years or completed 5 years service, whichever was earlier. It was also provided that the selected candidates would be on probation for a period of one year during which period their services could be terminated without notice, if their work was not found satisfactory. The petitioner joined the post of Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Jhunjhunu and took charge of the said post on 14.10.1991, on which date, agreement (Annx. 3) was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Vide order dated 19.3.1993 (Annx. 4) the probation of the petitioner was extended till 31.3.1993. On receipt of the copy of the abovesaid order, the petitioner sent notice dated 29.3.1993 (Annx. 5), through his Advocate, challenging the legality of Annx. 4. The respondent No. 1 issued order dated 30.3.1993 (Annx. 6) stating that the services of the petitioner, whose period of probation had been extended till 31.3.1993 would come to an end as they were no more required and, consequently, vide order dated 31.3.1993 (Annx. 7), issued by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu (respondent No. 4), Shri Mool Chand Meena, an RAS Officer, was directed to take charge from the petitioner and Shri Meena submitted charge report (Annx. 8) in this respect. 2. On 6.4.1993, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30..3.1993 (Annx. 6) terminating his services w.e.f. 31.3.1993 on the ground that the same was mala fide and was passed arbitrarily. The legality of order dated 19.3.1993 (Annx. 4) extending his period of probation, was also challenged on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the terms of agreement and without any authority. The petitioner stated that after taking over charge as Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Jhunjhunu, he worked under the administrative control of the Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Sainik Board, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) and Brig. The petitioner stated that after taking over charge as Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Jhunjhunu, he worked under the administrative control of the Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Sainik Board, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) and Brig. P.K. Gupta, who was then holding the post of the Secretary, had appreciated the work of the petitioner and that the impugned termination order had been passed without the concurrence of Brig. P.K. Gupta. It has also been stated that in November, 1992, the petitioner had been wrongfully transferred from Jhunjhunu to Alwar and, thereupon, he had challenged the order of his transfer by filing a writ petition, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7048/92 and this court had granted stay of the order of transfer of the petitioner and, thereupon, the respondents felt annoyed and, as such, have illegally passed orders dated 19.3.1993 and 30.3.1993 (Annx. 4 and Annx. 6). The petitioner has prayed that the order of termination of his services be quashed and he be directed to be reinstated in services as the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Jhunjhunu and be given all the benefits thereof. He has also claimed costs of this writ petition. 3. The petition has been opposed by the respondents, who, in their reply, have denied that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was mala fide or was arbitrary. It has been contended that since the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory, his period of probation was extended vide order dated 19.3.1993 (Annx. 4) and since he did not make any improvement, his services have been lawfully terminated vide order dated 30.3.1993 (Annx. 6). The contention in the petition that the petitioner worked under the administrative control of Brig. P.K. Gupta, Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Sainik Board, Jaipur and that Brig. Gupta appreciated his work and that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without consulting the said officer were not controverted and, in fact, no mention was made in regard to these matters in the reply at all. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder and attached therewith the copies of the letters written by the respondent No. 3 to the State Government appreciating the services rendered by the petitioner and stating that he worked hard and was curbing the corruption which was prevalent in the office of the Zila Sainik Board, Jhunjhunu. 5. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder and attached therewith the copies of the letters written by the respondent No. 3 to the State Government appreciating the services rendered by the petitioner and stating that he worked hard and was curbing the corruption which was prevalent in the office of the Zila Sainik Board, Jhunjhunu. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 6. A preliminary objection was raised by Shri Ajay Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondents, about the maintainability of this writ petition. It was contended that the petitioner joined the services in the office of the respondents under a contract and contract of service could not be enforced and if the petitioner was aggrieved, he could file a suit for damages. It was, however, not disputed that on joining the services of the respondents the petitioner became a Government servant. When confronted with the rule that the contract of personal service cannot be enforced subject to certain exceptions and one of the them being the case of a Government servant whose services are wrongfully/illegally terminated, this point was not agitated any further. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annx. 6) and has contended that the petitioner had not only the right to work for a period of three years from 14.10.1991 but also has the right to be considered for being retained in service for the period of 5 years or till he attained the age of 58 years, whichever is earlier. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this regard at the bar, it will be advantageous to refer to the terms of appointment as contained in the agreement dated 14.10.1991 (Annx. 3). The relevant terms in this regard are conditions No. 1 to 4, which read as under:- "1. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in this regard at the bar, it will be advantageous to refer to the terms of appointment as contained in the agreement dated 14.10.1991 (Annx. 3). The relevant terms in this regard are conditions No. 1 to 4, which read as under:- "1. That the party of the first part shall submit himself to the order of the Government and the officers and authorities under whom he may from time to time be placed by the Government and authorities shall remain in the service for the term of three years commencing from Fourteenth day of October, 1991 with the conditions that he will be on probation for the first one year and his service will be liable to be terminated without notice if his service during the period of probation are not found to be satisfactory. The service beyond the contract period of three years may be extended from year to year till age of 58 year or five years service on these posts, whichever is earlier, subject to provisions herein contained. 2. That the party of the first part shall devote his whole time to his duties and at all times obey the rules including the Government Servants Conduct Rules prescribed from time to time for regulation of the breach of the public service to which he may belong and shall, whenever required to proceed to any part of Rajasthan or India and there perform such duties as may be assigned to him. 3. That the service of the party of the first part may be terminated as follows:- (i) At any time at three calender months' notice in writing given to him by the Government, if in the opinion of the Government, the party of the first part proves unsuitable for the efficient performance of his duties during service under this agreement. (ii) By the Government without previous notice if the Government are satisfied on medical evidence that the party of the first part is unfit and is likely for a considerable period to continue unfit by reason of ill health for the discharge of his duties in Rajasthan or India, provided always the decision of the Government that the party of the first part is likely to continue unfit shall be conclusively binding on the party of the first part. (iii) By the Government of their officer having proper authority without any previous notice it the party of the first part shall be guilty of any insubordinate interference or other misconduct of or any breach or non-performance of any of the provisions of these presents or of any rules pertaining to the breach of the public service to which he may belong. 4. That if the party of the first part be suspended from duty during investigation into any charges of misconduct mentioned in sub- clause (iii) of clause 3 hereof, he shall not be entitled to any pay or allowances during such period of suspension. The Government may, however, in its discretion grant a subsistence allowance at such ratio as the Government may decide. 9. Bare reading of the abovesaid provisions shows that the appointment of the petitioner was made initially of a period of three years w.e.f. 14.10.1991 and his service period could be extended from year to year after the expiry of three years from 14.10.1994 on the basis of his work performance. It further shows that during that first year of his employment, which period has been described as the period of probation, his service could be terminated without any notice, if his services were not found to be satisfactory and that, after the expiry of the said period, his service could be terminated at any time either during the period of three years or during any extended period on three months' calander notice if he was found to be unsuitable for efficient performance of his duties, but the Government had the power to terminate his services without any previous notice on being satisfied that he was medically unfit for discharging his duties or was guilty of insubordinate interference or of other misconduct or any breach or non-performance of any of the provisions of these presents or of any rules pertaining to the breach of the public service. Admittedly, there is no term which required any order of confirmation to be issued after the expiry of initial period of one year, which has been described as the period of probation, and, similarly, there is no term empowering the respondents to extend the said period of one year. Admittedly, there is no term which required any order of confirmation to be issued after the expiry of initial period of one year, which has been described as the period of probation, and, similarly, there is no term empowering the respondents to extend the said period of one year. In other words, if, during the period of first year of his appointment, the services of the petitioner were not found to be satisfactory, his services could be terminated without any notice, but if it was not so done, his service could be terminated during the remaining period of two years or during the period of extension, if any, only by giving three months' notice, if he was found to be unsuitable for efficient performance of his duties or without notice if, on the basis of medical evidence, he was found to be unfit to perform his duties due to ill health or because of some misconduct or insubordinate interference etc. i.e. in accordance with the clauses (i) to (iii) of term No. 3 quoted above. In this view of the matter, the order dated 19.3.1993 (Annx. 4). having been passed in violation of the terms of employment was without any authority and, consequently, the order dated 30.3.1993 (Annx. 6) is also illegal and is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, no material has been brought on record to show that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. On the contrary, the petitioner's allegations in the writ petition that he was working under the administratative control of the Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Sainik Board, Jaipur and the then Secretary Brig. P.K. Gupta had appreciated his services had not been controverted in the reply and find support from the copies of documents annexed with the rejoinder as Annx. R-1/11, Annx. Annx. R-1/10 and R-1/9 i.e. the letters written by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 1 - State of Rajasthan on 28.10.1992, 27.1.1993 and 30.3.1993 respectively. The allegations in the writ petition that the services of the petitioner had been terminated by the respondent No. 1 without the concurrence of the respondent No. 3 have also not been controverted. It has not been disputed that the petitioner had earlier been ordered to be transferred to Alwar from Jhunjhunu and he filed a writ petition challenging the order of his transfer and obtained a stay order from this Court. It has not been disputed that the petitioner had earlier been ordered to be transferred to Alwar from Jhunjhunu and he filed a writ petition challenging the order of his transfer and obtained a stay order from this Court. No material has been placed on record to show as to how the respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner were not satisfactory specially in face of letters Annexures R-1/11, R-1/10 and R-1/9 written to the respondent No 1 by the respondent No. 3 under whom the petitioner was working. The non-disclosure of the material coupled with the abovesaid other facts clearly show that the order terminating the services of the petitioner is not bonafide but arbitrary. 10. For the abovesaid reasons, the order dated 10.3.1993 and 30.3.1993 (Annexure 4 and 6 respective) being illegal, have to be quashed. 11. The next point to be seen is the relief which should be given to the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. 12. If the impugned order (Annx. 6) had not been passed, the petitioner had a right to continue in service for a period of three years w.e.f. 14.10.1991 and had also a right to be considered for extension of his period of appointment on year to year basis till the age of 58 years or till he completed five years of service, whichever was earlier. By passing the impugned order (Annx. 6), the respondent No. 1 has deprived the petitioner not only of his right to serve for the unexpired period of three years i.e. with effect from 31.3.1993 to 13.10.1994 but has also deprived him of his right to be considered for extension of his service on year to year basis w.e.f. 14.10.1994 till he attained the age of 58 year or till he completed five years of his service, whichever was earlier. 13. In these circumstances, while allowing the writ petition, I quash the order dated 30.3.1993 (Annx. 13. In these circumstances, while allowing the writ petition, I quash the order dated 30.3.1993 (Annx. 6) and direct that the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in service for the period from 31.3.1993 to 13.10.1994 and be paid the salary and other benefits for the said period and that the case of the petitioner, which was to be considered for extension of his service after expiry of a period of three years, should be considered by the authorities on the basis of the earlier reports from the competent authority for the period ending 30.3.1993 and the decision in this respect should be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one month from today and within this period he should be paid the entire arrears of salary etc. for the relevant period. The petitioner is also held entitled to receive from the respondents the costs of and incidentals to this writ petition, which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.Ordered accordingly. *******