Petitioner was appointed by the State Bank of India as a Site Engineer in the category of Junior Engineer in the year 1992, on purely temporary basis. His services were continued from time to time and every time it was extended for one year. Lastly in the year 1996 an agreement was got executed by the Bank with the petitioner in which it was stipulated in para 6 that his services can be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. Following execution of the said contract in Jan/96, on 23rd July /96 petitioner was served by the Bank with a notice stating that the Bank administration has decided to terminate his services with effect from 1st September/96. Petitioner has challenged the said notice on the ground that the order passed by the Bank is by way of arbitrary exercise of power it has reserved for terminating services of the petitioner's contention is that no reason has been assigned for termination of his service in the said notice and in a very illegal fashion only to deny the petitioner the chance of becoming permanent employee. According to the petitioner there are number of construction works which have been undertaken by the State Bank of India in which petitioner services may be required. The fact that there is no want of work with the State Bank of India justifying retention of the services of petitioner and that his services were still required in connection with those works has not been denied by respondent Bank. The respondents have however justified the termination of the petitioner's service on the basis under para 6 of the contract by which petitioner was governed his service were liable to be terminated at any time without notice and reason hence it was accordingly terminated. No reason was required to be assigned as to why his services had been terminated except that his services were no longer required. It is not the case of respondents as disclosed in their contract agreement that petitioner's work and conduct was not upto the mark and that he did not discharges his duties effectively. It is also not the case of Bank that no work was available for being performed by the petitioner due to overstaffing. 2. It is not the case of respondents as disclosed in their contract agreement that petitioner's work and conduct was not upto the mark and that he did not discharges his duties effectively. It is also not the case of Bank that no work was available for being performed by the petitioner due to overstaffing. 2. In these circumstances, allegations made by the petitioner that there was sufficient work in Bank for which petitioner's employment could be continued and that the only motive or for his termination was to deprive him from regular employment seems to be substantiated. 3. In West Bangal Electricity Board vs. Desh Bandhu Ghose, AIR 1985 SC 722 the Supreme Court has disproved stipulation of the nature as in para 6 of the contract which the petitioner was called by the Bank to enter for entering its service. The Supreme Court has held that such stipulations in the contract of service are violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The above view has found full endorsement by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congeress, AIR 1991 SC 101 . 4. The Supreme Court further in Govt. Branch Press vs. D. Beliappa, AIR 1979 SC 729 has disapproved termination of the services of temporary employees without any rhyme or reason. As per the view expressed by the Supreme Court in that case it is incumbent for the employer (the Govt.) to inform the Court by means of counter affidavit of the reasons for the termination of the service of such employees though it may not mention those reasons in the order of termination lest it is challenged for being punitive. In case the reasons are not made known to the Court, the Court will not be able to assess whether the services were terminated in proper exercise of power or it was done arbitrarily by way of hire and fire. Unfortunately, respondent Bank is tight lipped about the reason for which it decided to terminate petitioners services. The Court has, thus, no option but to presume that it indulged in hire and fire practice which is not allowed. Hence, it is void ab initio. As per the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Ghosh's case para 6 of the contract on which respondents place reliance is void ab-initio. The Court has, thus, no option but to presume that it indulged in hire and fire practice which is not allowed. Hence, it is void ab initio. As per the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Ghosh's case para 6 of the contract on which respondents place reliance is void ab-initio. In the above view, the respondents possess no justification for terminating the services of the petitioner as they had no other reasons for doing so in view of the own plea that the Bank terminated his service in terms of para 6 of the contract of employment. 5. In the result, notice of termination dated 23.7.96 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from the date of the impugned notice and shall not terminate his service otherwise then in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to be paid the costs which is assessed as Rs.3,000/-. 6. Respondents shall further consider petitioners claim for regularisation of service ignoring the break in his service caused on Banks own choice and thus treating him in service from the date of his initial appointment as Site Engineer.