JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 17.11.1997, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner was appointed by order dated 2.2.1981, as Company Commander in the Home Guards Organisation in a temporary capacity vide Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. 4. It is alleged that this appointment was made on the recommendations of a selection committee. It is also alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that the work of the Petitioner was satisfactory. However, the Petitioner's service as Company Commander was terminated by order dated 10.1.1990 vide Annexure-2 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that the Petitioner's service was terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing or holding any enquiry. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is alleged that the District Commandant, the Respondent No. 4 wanted to take illegal work from the Petitioner and since the Petitioner refused, the termination order was passed in a mala fide manner. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition that the Petitioner's juniors are working. The Petitioner filed a claim petition vide Annexure-3 to the petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in which counter and rejoinder-affidavit was filed. However, the said petition has been dismissed vide Annexure-1 to the petition. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed. 5. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. In paragraph 3 of the same, it has been stated that Petitioner's appointment as Company Commander in Home Guards Organisation was on temporary basis without any pay and he was only entitled to get an honorarium whenever he was asked to discharge his duty as Company Commander. The Petitioner was not a member of the service of the State Government. His service was terminated, as it was no longer required in the Home Guards. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bibhuti Narayan Singh v. State and Ors. 1986 UPLBEC 1130 and the subsequent decision of the learned single Judges in Dashrat Singh Parihar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (1) AWC 376 and Suraj Prasad Tiwari Vs. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bibhuti Narayan Singh v. State and Ors. 1986 UPLBEC 1130 and the subsequent decision of the learned single Judges in Dashrat Singh Parihar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (1) AWC 376 and Suraj Prasad Tiwari Vs. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur and others, (1998) 3 AWC 1622 , wherein it was held that the post of Company Commander of Home Guards is a civil post and hence Article 311 has to be complied with before terminating the service of a Company Commander. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has relied on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Gulam Mohd. and Ors. v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 29824 of 1992 and Writ Petition No. 27675 of 1992, decided on 23.9.1992, wherein it was held that the post of Company Commander is not a civil post. 7. Thus, it appears there are contradictory decisions of Division Benches of this Court on the point as to whether a Company Commander of Home Guards holds a civil post within the meaning of Article 311. However, in our, opinion it is not necessary to refer this matter to a Full Bench because even assuming that the said post is a civil post, yet this petition cannot succeed because admittedly the Petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis vide Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. There is nothing to show that Petitioner's service was terminated as a measure of punishment, rather it appears that it was a case of termination simplicitor. It is settled law that a temporary appointee has no right to the post. As regards the allegations of mala fide, it has rightly been pointed out in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that the allegations against Sri Rama Shanker, Commandant, Home Guards cannot be looked into, as he has not been impleaded in the writ petition. 8. Since the Petitioner was only a temporary appointee, in our opinion, he has no right to the post, and there is no illegality in the impugned termination order. The petition is therefore, dismissed.