Honble YADAV, J–The petitioner was temporarily appointed on probation firstly for a period of six months. However the term was extended for another six months vide order dated 12.5.98 (Annex.3). (2). Within the expiry of the aforesaid probation period, services of the petitioner were terminated under Rule 12 of the Raj. Municipalities (Class IV Servi- ce) Rules 1964 which provides that all directly recruited candidates shall on appoin- tment in service are required to be placed on probation for a period of one year. (3). Since the petitioner was temporarily appointed on probation, within the period of probation his services were liable to be discharged. He cannot be permitted to claim to have vested right to continue in service while his suitability on the post was under watch of his employer. (4). A person who is placed on probation if discharged from his services within the probation period under the Rules then such employee is not entitled to be given an opportunity of hearing as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. (5). The impugned termination order dated 12.5.98 (Annex.3) is innocuous causing no stigma upon the petitioner. (6). There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the order dated 13.7.98 (Annex.4). The grounds disclosed in Annex.4 are unconscionable and as such I decline to issue a prerogative writ in the present case. As a result of aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.