JUDGMENT 1. - Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner an Apprentice Development Officer, is seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order/letter dated December 23, 1997 terminating the services of the petitioner and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner two more attempts to appear in pre-probation tests of the Development Officer to be held in times to come. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared in pre-probation test of Apprentice Development Officer held on December 9, 1997 and was declared unsuccessful and services of the petitioner were terminated vide order/letter dated December 23, 1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per para 4 of the recruitment letter dated March 25, 1997 the petitioner was only required to pass the pre-probation test before appointment as Development Officer on probation. Number of attempts to pass the test was not mentioned therein. It was also not stated that Apprentice Development Officer must pass the pre-probation test in one attempt only. As Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Dhan Raj Meena and Ashok Kumar Gupta were allowed more than one attempt to pass the pre-probation test, the similar treatment ought to have been accorded to the petitioner also. Act of providing only one attempt to the petitioner to pass the pre-probation test is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents in their reply pleaded that only one opportunity was envisaged to be provided to appear' in the pre-probation test. There is no provision for giving the second chance to appear in the test as is apparent from the letter of recruitment itself. The respondents did not deny the averments of para 19 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner stated that Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Dhan Raj Meena and Ashok Kumar Gupta though failed in the pre-probation test in first attempt yet they were allowed more than one attempt to appear in the test and they were reinstated in the services after they got success in the test in second or third attempt. The only averments made by the respondents in this regard is that Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Dhan Raj Meena and Ashok Kumar Gupta were not related to the batch in which the petitioner had appeared. 4. The only averments made by the respondents in this regard is that Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Dhan Raj Meena and Ashok Kumar Gupta were not related to the batch in which the petitioner had appeared. 4. Undeningly the respondents have been allowing in past the unsuccessful candidates to appear more than once in the pre-probation test but they deviated from this policy now and did not allow more than one attempt to the unsuccessful ADO's of the batch of the petitioner. 5. The precedented action of the respondents with which parity is claimed by the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. Therefore, the respondents are bound to accord the same treatment to the petitioner, who is similarly situated to Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Dhan Rajnena and Ashok Kumar Gupta. In case the respondents intend to deviate, it becomes their burden to justify deviation from their previous action taken in the light of existing circumstances by placing cogent material providing a reasonable nexus to object and rational basis for the same. Plea of mere inadvertency will not absolve them from providing equal treatment. 6. i am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that writ petition is not maintainable as several disputed questions of fact are involved. In my considered view the decision of the writ petition may be based on uncontroverted facts incorporated in para 19 of the writ petition in respect of providing more than one attempt to three unsuccessful candidates in past to appear in the pre-probation test. The respondents have failed to discharge their burden to justify deviation from their previous action. Thus act of respondents in not according similar treatment to the petitioner, as accorded by them to similarly situated persons like Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Dhan Raj Meena and Ashok Kumar Gupta is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. As the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in pre-probation test his services were rightly terminated vide order/letter dated December 23, 1997. Thus the said order cannot be quashed until and unless the petitioner gets through in pre-probation test. The only relief to which the petitioner is entitled to reappear in the said test. 8. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed in part. Thus the said order cannot be quashed until and unless the petitioner gets through in pre-probation test. The only relief to which the petitioner is entitled to reappear in the said test. 8. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed in part. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner one more attempt to appear in pre-probation test of Development Officer to be held in times to come. The respondents shall inform the petitioner about the date of the said test by registered post at his address given in the writ petition. If the petitioner gets through in the said test he be reinstated in the services after treating his absence from duties from December 13, 1997 as 'Dies- non`. Costs easy.Writ Petition Allowed In Part. *******