Judgment : J. C. Gupta, J. 1. BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of termination dated 16.3.88 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has further prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise petitioner's services on the post of Agriculture Teacher. 2. THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Agriculture Teacher under the Education Scheme No. 11 by means of appointment order dated 11.7.71. He joined the services on 17.7.71 in the Higher Secondary School, Musapur District Budaun. Since then, he was continuously working to the satisfaction of his superior officers without any complaint. His services were abruptly terminated by the impugned order after when the petitioner had put In about 17 years of service. Before the Impugned termination order, the petitioner was even allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. According to the petitioner, under the aforesaid Scheme, twenty five persons were appointed, out of them twenty two persons have been confirmed, but not the petitioner and his services have been terminated by a discriminatory action. THE impugned order of termination shows that the only reason given therein is that the petitioner's services were no longer required. THE Scheme was very much alive and the vacancies were in existence. Thus, there is no rational reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. THE State Government by means of G. O. dated 20.11.79 once again reiterated the Government stand relating to the temporary employee by making a categorical statement to the effect that the matter regarding confirmation/regularisation was unnecessarily delayed. A direction was issued to the Heads of various departments not only to confirm the Government employees working over three years, but also to get temporary posts declared permanent. Another G. O. dated 19.8.81 was issued emphasising that the entire benefits almost at par with those provided to permanent employees should be extended to all such temporary employees, who had completed three or more years of regular service. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the department. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis with the condition that his service could be terminated at any time after giving one months' notice. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the department. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis with the condition that his service could be terminated at any time after giving one months' notice. It Is further stated that like other temporary employees, the petitioner's case for regularlsation was also considered by the Selection Committee under the provisions of U. P. Regularlsation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on posts outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. However, he was not found suitable for regularlsation as there were adverse entries In his character roll in the years 1973-74 to 1979-80. As the petitioner was not found suitable for regularlsation, his services were terminated by the impugned order. 3. IN the supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it Is stated by the petitioner that as per the performance sheet, his performance was cent percent in the years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The adverse entry of 1978-79 was expunged by the D.D.R., Meerut. 4. THE petitioner's counsel and the standing counsel have been heard at length. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Servsri Paras Nath Bhartiya and Satya Deo Mishra, who were also appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis like that of petitioner and whose services were also terminated by an identical order, challenged their termination by filing Writ Petitions No. 20231 of 1988 and 5789 of 1988 respectively. Both the writ petitions have been allowed by this Court by different Benches on 15.1.93 and 13.7.95 respectively. The Judgment given in Writ Petition No. 20231 of 1988 is an unreported decision, while the judgment passed in the other writ petition has been reported In 1995 AWC 1800. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner's case is identical to that of the aforesaid persons, the impugned termination order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner entitled to regularisation. 5. THE judgment rendered in the case of Paras Nath Bhartiya (Writ Petition No. 20231 of 1988) was delivered by Hon'ble Vijai Bahuguna, J. THE writ petition was allowed on the ground that while considering the case of the petitioner of that case, the Selection Committee erred in law by taking into consideration the adverse entries from 1973 to 1978, when the petitioner of that case had admittedly crossed the Efficiency Bar. THE relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below : "In Para 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he had crossed the Efficiency Bar in the year 1978 and he has put In 16 years continuous service when the termination order was passed. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had crossed the Efficiency Bar in the year 1978. THE Selection Committee has erred in law by taking into consideration the adverse entries of the petitioner from 1973 to 1978 when the petitioner had admittedly crossed the Efficiency Bar in the year 1978. THE nature of the adverse entries have not been disclosed to this Court. THE petitioner's services should have been regularised and the failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice and caused undue hardships to the petitioner". 6. WRIT Petition No. 5789 of 1988 filed by Satya Deo Mishra was allowed by Hon'ble M. Katju, J., by the judgment dated 13.7.95. The learned Judge was of the view that when a person is appointed even temporarily, then within two or three years the authority must confirm him, if his work was satisfactory or if the work was not satisfactory, his services might be terminated and it is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable to keep a Damocles sword hanging over the head of the employee and not to confirm him for a long period of time. The learned Judge further held that the allegation that the Selection Committee found the work of the petitioner unsatisfactory was of no consequence, as such a selection was to be made within two or three years of the appointment and it could not be done after 18 years of the appointment and since there was nothing to show that the respondents had taken any steps within few years of the petitioner's appointment to Judge his suitability, his services could not be terminated after 18 years of the appointment on the ground of unsuitability and such an action was held to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is not disputed before me that like the present petitioner, the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitioners were also appointed as Agriculture Teachers under the same Scheme on temporary basis. It is not disputed before me that like the present petitioner, the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitioners were also appointed as Agriculture Teachers under the same Scheme on temporary basis. Their services were also terminated after 17-18 years of appointment on the ground of their having been found unsuitable by the Selection Committee, when their cases for regularisation were considered. The petitioner's case is thus not distinguishable from them from any corner and there is no reason why the same relief be not extended to the petitioner, as was given to the persons similarly placed like that of the petitioner. 7. IN the present case also, the petitioner had worked continuously for about 17 years without any break and during this long period of service, he was transferred from one place to another and was even allowed to cross his Efficiency Bar. He had not earned any adverse entry except for the year 1978-79, which also was expunged by the order of the D.D.R., Meerut. The requirement for Regularisation Rules was that an employee should have put in three years or more continuous service and then he should be found suitable by Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of regularisation. Undisputedly the petitioner had put in about 17 years of continuous service. With regard to the suitability, according to the respondents' stand, he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee and, therefore, he was not regularised and consequently, there was no option but to terminate his services. The Selection Committee, in my opinion, has committed an error apparent on the face of record in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. While examining the case of an employee on the question of suitability, the Selection Committee cannot be allowed to act in an arbitrary manner. There must exist some material in support of the conclusion of the Selection Committee that the employee was found unsuitable. If the conclusion of the Committee is based on no material or on a non-existing fact, the same cannot be sustained in law. As already pointed out above, the Selection Committee based their conclusion on unsuitability on the adverse remark of the petitioner recorded in the year 1978-79, which was expunged by the D.D.R., Meerut. If the conclusion of the Committee is based on no material or on a non-existing fact, the same cannot be sustained in law. As already pointed out above, the Selection Committee based their conclusion on unsuitability on the adverse remark of the petitioner recorded in the year 1978-79, which was expunged by the D.D.R., Meerut. The Selection Committee also failed to take into account the fact that soon before the meeting, the petitioner had been allowed to cross his Efficiency Bar. It, therefore, appears that the Selection Committee erred in law in taking into consideration the aforesaid adverse entry and IN not taking into account the fact that admittedly the petitioner had been allowed to cross his Efficiency Bar. The decision of the Selection Committee suffers from manifest error of law and is not sustainable. IN both the aforesaid decisions, the termination orders were set aside and the petitioners were directed to be treated as regularised in service. There is no reason why the same relief should not be allowed to the petitioner, which has been granted to other persons similarly placed like that of the petitioner. 8. NORMALLY, this Court does not issue a direction to regularise services of an employee and merely directs the authority concerned to consider the case for the regularisation, but in the instant case, there are more than one reason which compel me to take a view that there is no necessity of issuing a direction for reconsideration of petitioner's case for regularisation of his service. Firstly, there is no distinction between petitioner's case and that of other persons, whose cases were identical and their services have been regularised by the orders of this Court. Secondly, the petitioner's case for regularisation has been considered by the Selection Committee, whose decision has been found to be not in accordance with law and arbitrary and thirdly, for the reason that the petitioner has put in more than 17-18 years of service and was even allowed to cross Efficiency Bar soon before the decision of the Selection Committee. The result is that the impugned termination order dated 16.3.88 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is set aside and it is declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularised from the due date. The result is that the impugned termination order dated 16.3.88 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is set aside and it is declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularised from the due date. If the petitioner has continued in service on the basis of the interim order of this Court dated 4.5.88, he shall be entitled to all service benefits to which he is entitled as a regular employee. 9. WITH the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.