R. N. RAY, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant who argued at length. Learned counsel Sri AN. Bhargava sub mitted that he has no instruction in the matter. Sri B. N. Agarwal another learned counsel for the opposite party did not ap pear though the matter was taken up in the revised list. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was appointed as Fire Engine Driver in 192-Petroleum Platoon Army Supply at Jhansi. Promotion and re-classification of fire service person nel is done by A. S. C. Records (Supply), Bangalore who is the competent authority. According to the plaintiff, he was not given an opportunity but he was terminated, which was illegal and prayed for reinstatement and it was contended that the rever sion and dismissal from service were in con travention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitu tion and so those were against natural jus tice and equity. The learned trial Court did not consider the suit filed by the respondent and the evidence on record but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was never employed permanently and as such he was not entitled for the relief claimed for. 3. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jhansi and the learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal and held that plaintiff was a permanent employee and was holding a per manent post of Fire Engine Fitter and his reversion was illegal as no opportunity was given to the plaintiff- respondent and as such the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal against which this appeal has been preferred. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff-respondent was appointed as Fire Engine Driver in 192- Petroleum Platoon Army Supply Corps, at Jhansi and his services were purely on temporary basis and promotion and re-classification of Fire Service Personnel are done by A. S. C. Records (Supply), Bangalore who is the competent Authority-Major Dunn, Officer Command ing 192 appointed plaintiff as Fire Engine Driver and he illegally confirmed him and gave promotion without any authority to do so and when the matter came to the knowledge of A. S. C. Records (Supply), Bangalore who is the competent authority relating to the promotion and re-classifica tion of fire service personnel. He called for an explanation from Major Dunn, Officer Commanding 192-Petroleum Platoon A. S. C. Jhansi and thereafter plaintiff-respondent was reverted and the plaintiff-respondent was discharged from service. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Munsif who held that the ap pointment letter clearly showed that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was appointed as Fire Engine Driver in 192-Petroleum Platoon Army Supply Corps, Jhansi against temporary vacancy it was stipulated that his services would be terminated at any time without one months notice and there was no documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the learned court below that plaintiff was legally confirmed in service and after dis missal of the suit, plaintiff-respondent filed civil appeal No. 125/76 and the learned Dis trict Judge allowed the appeal. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that plaintiff was a permanent employee and was holding a permanent post of Fire Engine Fitter as such the plaintiffs rever sion was illegal since no opportunity was given to the plaintiff respondent of being heard before his reversion and against that judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, this appeal has been preferred. 5. On perusal of the records, it appears that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was ap pointed as Fire Engine Driver in 192-Petroleum Platoon Army Supply Corps. , Jhansi and that in the appointment it was stipulated that he might be terminated at any time without any notice and he never claimed to be a permanent employee and that the learned advocate for appellant has submitted that the lower appellate Court came to a jumping conclusion and the judg ment of the lower appellate Court is er roneous and as such in this way he wanted that this appeal should be allowed. 6. Duly considered the submissions. Learned Counsel for the appellant sub mitted that plaintiff- respondent No. 1 was appointed as temporary civilian Fire Engine Driver and nowhere it has been pleaded in the plaint that his services were made per manent and he never claimed himself to be a permanent employee and as such in the ab sence of pleadings no evidence could be led or looked into by courts. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited the following decisions AIR 1930 PC 57; AIR 1953 SC 235 (para 22); AIR 1954 SC 458 (para 5) and AIR 1962 Alld 11 (para 8 ). 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited the following decisions AIR 1930 PC 57; AIR 1953 SC 235 (para 22); AIR 1954 SC 458 (para 5) and AIR 1962 Alld 11 (para 8 ). 7. It has been further submitted that plaintiff-respondent was never made permanent by the appointing authority i. e. Army Service Corps. Records (Supply) Bangalore. Major Dunn was not the appointing authority. Annual confidential reports could not be looked into as those entries were made without authority as held by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1964 SC 521 (Paras 8 and 9 ). Plaintiff- respondent after having acted upon the order of reversion"and having worked as fire engine driver for sufficient time could not challenge the order of reversion. Article 311 (2) of our Constitution is not applicable to Civilians in Defence Service; tney are not entitled to protection under Article 311 (2 ). The salary of the plaintiff-respondent was paid out of the estimates of the Defence Ministry and he was connected with the defence of the country not as a combatant, but as a person holding a post the object of which was to exclusively serve the Military Department as civilian-driver as such he could not claim protection of Article 311 (2 ). In this connection, the following decisions may be relied upon; AIR 1971 SC 211 ; 1976 SCC (S&l) 492 paras 20&21. As 311 (2) was not applicable in the instant case to the benefit of plaintiff-respondent, the rules of natural justice cannot be invoked and the view taken by the learned appellate court is not correct and shall not prevail even under the general law of master and servant. In view of the facts and the cir cumstances of the case and the decisions of the Hon"ble Apex Court I allow this appeal. The judgment and decree as passed by the learned lower appellate court in civil appeal No. 125/76, stand set aside, but I do not order as to costs as the plaintiff-respondent did not contest here at the time of hearing of the appeal. Appeal allowed. .