DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of termination on the ground that while terminating petitioners services, juniors were retained and principle of first come last go was not followed. 2. While filing the present writ petition in Para 8 the petitioner had pleaded that services of one Mahesh Ram, S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad was regularised w. e. f. 13-12-1979. According to petitioners Counsel petitioner was appointed as daily wager on 4-9-1978. His services were terminated by impugned order dated 28-1-1992, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The order of termination is innocuous and has been passed on the ground that department does not require his services. He was also given compensation in terms of provisions contained in Section 6-N of the Industrial Dispute Act. 3. The averments contained in para 8 of the writ petition have been denied by the respondents in the same para of counter-affidavit. However, with the rejoinder affidavit petitioner had filed a copy of appointment letter of Shri Mahesh Ram which shows that Shri Mahesh Ram was appointed on 22-5- 1979. The genuineness of appointment letter of Shri Mahesh Ram has not been disputed by the respondents in spite of fact that affidavit was filed on 19th March, 2002. 4. Accordingly, from the evidence on record, it is obvious that Shri Mahesh Ram was appointed subsequent to the petitioner. Petitioners Counsel further proceeded to submit that service of Shri Mahesh Ram was terminated more than one time and in spite of chequered history he has been retained in service for extraneous reasons. 5. It is settled law that in case authorities want to terminate the services of temporary employees then that should be done by following the principle of first come last go. 6. In the present case, from the evidence and pleading on record it appears that of on one hand the services of Shri Mahesh Ram was retained and on other hand, petitioner was terminated from service though he was senior than Shri Mahesh Ram. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 28-1-1992 passed by opposite party No. 2 a contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 28-1-1992 passed by opposite party No. 2 a contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner had not discharged duty he shall not be entitled for payment of back wages. However, petitioner shall be restored in service forthwith and shall be paid salary and wages in accordance to rules. Opposite parties are further directed to consider the petitioners case for regularisation keeping in view the services from his initial date of appointment in accordance to rules forthwith. 8. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. .