D. S. SINHA AND LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at length and in detail. Sri V. N. Agrawal, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. , representing the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, has also been heard. ( 2 ) THE order and judgment dated 18th July, 1988 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal no. 1, Lucknow, the respondent No. 1, upholding the order dated 9th July. 1983, purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner as Collection Amin, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services were liable to be terminated under the provisions of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of service) Rules, 1975. ( 4 ) BEFORE the respondent No. 1, the order of termination was challenged by the petitioner as being punitive, and also as being discriminatory inasmuch as juniors to him were allowed to continue. ( 5 ) THE respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 contested the claim of the petitioner and justified the termination on the ground of his general unsuitabllity. It was asserted that, despite warning, the petitioner did not give any indication of improvement. It was also pointed out that in the year 1973, the petitioner was removed from service, but he was subsequently given another chance by a fresh appointment in October, 1974. According to respondents, the petitioner did not render satisfactory service. The assertion of unsatisfactory service was sought to be justified on the ground of extremely low recoveries of revenue by the petitioner as Collection Amin. ( 6 ) AFTER thorough scrutiny and detailed examination of the material produced before it, the respondent No. 1 has recorded findings of fact to the effect that the ground of unsuitabllity leading to dispensation of services of the petitioner was substantiated from the relevant figures of low recovery of revenue by the petitioner as Collection Amin, and that there was no discrimination. ( 7 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that a temporary employee has no right on the post. His services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the Rules and terms of the contract of service. See state of U. P. and Anr. ( 7 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that a temporary employee has no right on the post. His services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the Rules and terms of the contract of service. See state of U. P. and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishor Shukla, 1991 (1) AWC 651 (SO : JT 1991 (1) SC 108. In the instant case, the provisions of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of service) Rules, 1975, are applicable, and the said Rules empower the relevant authority to terminate the services of a temporary Government servant on one months notice or by paying one months salary in lieu of notice, and the Impugned order of termination has been passed by the authority in exercise of the aforesaid power. ( 8 ) IT may be noticed that the impugned order of termination dated 9th July, 1983, which is on record before the Court as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, by itself, is merely an order of termination simpliciter and does not attach any such stigma which may have the effect of rendering the order punitive in nature. ( 9 ) IT is true that while Justifying the order of termination before the respondent No. 1. the respondent Nos. 2. 3 and 4 asserted that the petitioner was unsuitable. To buttress this assertion of unsuitability, they produced before the respondent No. 1 the relevant material, as noticed in the impugned order and Judgment of the respondent No. 1 dated 18th July, 1988. Relying upon the said material, the respondent No. 1 has upheld the plea of unsuitability of the petitioner, and, in the opinion of the Court, rightly so. ( 10 ) A feeble attempt to attack the impugned order and judgment of respondent No. 1 was made by the learned counsel of the petitioner solely by pressing ground No. (5) raised in the petition. The ground No. (5) reads thus : " (5) Because the Tribunal has not exercised jurisdiction vested in it in asmuch as it allowed the application for summoning the records but has given award without considering the documents summoned by the petitioner. " ( 11 ) THE ground No. (5) extracted above is to the effect that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order and judgment without considering the documents summoned by the petitioner. " ( 11 ) THE ground No. (5) extracted above is to the effect that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order and judgment without considering the documents summoned by the petitioner. Annexures-1 and 2 appended to the supplementary affidavit go to show that the documents summoned at the behest of the petitioner were not produced before the respondent No. I. In the absence of the documents, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 to consider them. It has not been demonstrated that non-production of the documents gave rise to any such adverse inference against the contesting respondents and in favour of the petitioner as to render the impugned decision vitiated. Perhaps, it was Insignificant. ( 12 ) ON the material produced before the respondent No. 1, the petitioner has been found unsuitable. He was a temporary Government servant with no right to hold the post and his services having not been terminated on the ground of any misconduct, the respondent No. 1 has rightly upheld the order of termination of services of the petitioner. The impugned order and judgment is perfect and suffers from no vice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its special and extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) IN the result, the petition falls and is hereby dismissed. ( 14 ) THERE is no order as to costs. .