The petitioner really prays to quash an intimation vide letter P. I. R.-2/p. R. O.-433/91-92, dated July 15, 1991 of the Commissioner-cum-Administrator, Ram Ganga Command Project, 3a/101, Azad Nagar, Kanpur-2 (Respon dent No. 2) intimating him that according to G. O. No. 15m/54-1-1-9/154/86, dated 11-7-1991, copy attached, he is being informed that his services have been terminated with effect from 28-2-1981. For the reasons be known to the petitioner he has not ap pended the G. O. aforementioned. 2. The petitioner has come up with a case that his appointment cannot be ter minated retrospectively and thus is wholly inconceived and liable to be quashed ; that his request for regularisation has been duly forwarded by Respondent No. 2 and thus he be allowed to continue against the post in question till regularisation takes place; that the impugned order has been passed mala fide due to political pressure by the respon dents. The petitioner has come up with a further case that since he has completed more than 9 months service it will not be proper to terminate this services. 3. Annexure-1, the earliest office order, contains a copy of the order by which in compliance of the earlier G. Os. dated 9-8-90 and 20-9-90 the petitioner was ap pointed as a Public Relation Officer till a regular appointment takes place or till 28-2-1991, whoever is earlier, on a fixed salary of Rs. 2000 per month. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no one has been appointed permanently against the aforementioned post. 4. dated 9-8-90 and 20-9-90 the petitioner was ap pointed as a Public Relation Officer till a regular appointment takes place or till 28-2-1991, whoever is earlier, on a fixed salary of Rs. 2000 per month. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no one has been appointed permanently against the aforementioned post. 4. In the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by Deputy Director of Horticulture attached in the office of respondent No. 2, it has been stated, inter alia that one Kaushal Hari Narain was working as Public Regulation Officer whose services were ter minated who, however, thereafter filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Ser vices Tribunal III during the pendency of which the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis on the terms and conditions aforementioned; that the claim petition of Kaushal Hari Narain was al lowed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal vide its order dated 17- 10-1990 which was affirmed up to the Honble Supreme Court; that the petitioner has obtained an ex pane order of stay from this Court to the effect that he may continue against the post in question till a regularly selected candidates joins which has come to an end automat ically in view of the aforementioned facts; and that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner has been disallowed by the Government. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, which has been filed today after serving its copy on the learned standing counsel also today, it has been stated, inter alia, that after the removal termination of Kaushal Hari Narain till today no one has been appointed regularly; that after his reinstatement Kaushal Hari Narain was transferred by the State Govern ment to Sharda Sahayak Command in Sep tember, 1995; that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation on 27-3-1996 the fate of which has not yet been communicated to the petitioner who is still discharging his duties and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be allowed and interim order con firmed. 6. Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, con tended that the petitioner is still discharging his duties as a Public Relation Officer and no one having been appointed, it is a fit case in which this Court should pass a direction commanding the Respondent No. 1, the State Government, to consider his claim for permanent appointment. 7. 7. Sri Yadav, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner has been allowed to continue against the post in question because of the interim order passed by this Court though at one stage its effect ended automatically with the allowance of the claim of Kaushal Hari Narain and in view of the fact that a copy of the rejoinder affidavit containing a copy of the petitioners second representation made after the transfer of Kaushal Hari Narain he is not in a position to say anything in that regard nevertheless on his appoint ment letter and on the case of the petitioner himself as pressed before this Court no one having been appointed after the transfer of Kaushal Hari Narain as a Public Relation Officer, his appointment having been made for a fixed period which ended because of the expiry of the peremptory period, the petitioner has no legal right to pray to quash the impugned order. 8. Having perused the record and ap preciated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties there is no doubt in our mind that the petitioners ap pointment was effective only for a peremptory period and not till the per manent appointment is made. The post of a Public Relation Officer is a class III post and cannot be made from behind the door. It has to be made through an open door policy, that is to say, after a regular advertisement to all concerned so that the rights guaran teed to aspirant citizens under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India could not be violated by the Government itself. It is not the case of the petitioner before us that the Government had taken resort to an open door policy by making advertisement in any newspaper, including its Gazette. On the materials on the record his appointment was against a fixed salary also. The worst part of the petitioners case is that he has not even cared to append a copy of the G. O. by which his services were terminated which in its absence cannot be quashed by us. An-nexure-4 is merely a follow up action and not the G. O. itself. 9. For the aforementioned reasons we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for by him. An-nexure-4 is merely a follow up action and not the G. O. itself. 9. For the aforementioned reasons we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for by him. This writ petition thus, fails and is dismissed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances we make no order as to cost. 10. True it is that the petitioner has come up with a further claim through the rejoinder affidavit, a copy of which has been served on the learned Standing Counsel only today just before the case was taken up, in which the petitioner has stated that after the transfer of Kaushal Hari Narain and his joining to the transferred post the petitioner filed yet another representation on 27-3-1996. We can say only this much in this regard that if it is a fact that the petitioner has filed such a representation it may be considered in accordance with law by the Government keeping in mind that whether in view of the constitutional man date enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India it will be permissible for it to make a permanent appointment in breach there of. 11. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to the learned standing counsel for its communication to the Government. Petition dismissed. .