JUDGEMENT SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J. 1. Being aggrieved by order of termination issued vide memo No. 2897, dated 11.11.1993 contained in Annexure 21) passed by the Deputy Secretary-cum-Special Secretary of Irrigation Department (Water Resources Department) the petitioner has moved this court invoking the writ jurisdiction praying for quashing of the order whereby the petitioners services has been terminated and also making a prayer that he may be reinstated in service. This is the third round of litigation before this court. 2. The petitioner was working as a Seasonal Amin from the year 1969 to 1977. The Government had taken a decision vide Setter No. 10.3.1980 that the person who were working as Amins without break for five years should be regularized as permanent Amins. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Amin on 31.3.1980 on temporary basis against a vacant post in Jainagar Anchal and a request was sent to the Director, Irrigation Department to sanction the post of Amin in the department. In the meantime permanent post of Amin fell vacant due to retirement of one Satyadeo Lal Das and the petitioner filed a representation that he may be absorbed against the permanent post of Amin. The petitioner thereafter was appointed on 16.8.1982 vide Annexure 9 subject to approval of the Selection Committee. 3. On 26.12.1983 the petitioners services were terminated by the Deputy Collector on the ground that he had committed some forgery. The petitioner then moved this court by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 312/1984. The Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State conceded that the termination was stigmatic and as such the order was quashed by this court on 15.3.1984 and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 14.8.1984 and was also paid the arrears of salary. 4. The service of the petitioner was terminated for the second time on 31.1.1985 alongwith two others, that is, Gosai Yadav and Ram Hriday Trivedi. Subsequently Sri Yadav and Sri Trivedi were reappointed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before this court being CWJC No. 427/1992 wherein the grievance of the petitioner was that although the petitioner was terminated alongwith aforesaid two persons, their cases were considered by the Screening Committee whereas the case of the petitioner was not considered by the committee as a result of which he remained out of service. By order, dated 8.7.1993 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, this court directed that the petitioners case should be considered by the Screening Committee in the same manner as the case of Sri Yadav and Sri Trivedi. 5. Subsequently the case of the petitioner was placed before the Screening Committee on 6.11.1993 and was rejected on 11.11.1993 by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had not worked as Amin for five years before the matter came up for consideration before the committee. 6. The only question to be considered by this court is whether the impugned order, dated 11.11.1993 contained in Annexure 21 is based on the correct interpretation of requirement of having continuous service of five years before the Screening Committee could have taken a decision to appoint the petitioner as Amin. 7. The first appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of a Government decision by the Irrigation Department which envisages that certain categories of staff working in Irrigation Department on seasonal basis and having continuously worked for five years would be considered for absorption on their respective post. At that stage the petitioners case was considered and he is said to have worked for five years and as such the petitioner was appointed temporarily with the. condition that his case would be placed before the Screening Committee. Subsequently from the facts stated aforesaid, there was a break in service but this was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner, rather, it was. because of the fact that the department had terminated the services of the petitioner on 26.12.1983. This order was set aside and the petitioner was again reinstated to be terminated once again on 31.1.1985. Under the circumstances, therefore, the stand of the Irrigation Department that the petitioner had not worked for five years on the date of his consideration for absorption, that is, 6.11.1993, does not seem to be justified. While considering this aspect, the authorities have relied on a Government decision, dated 2.5.1992. By the aforesaid decision the Irrigation Department had taken a decision to absorp the persons working as Paribharamaks, Seasonal Sanghrahaks, Seasonal Amin and Seasonal Moharrir as regular employees with the condition being that they should have worked for five years continuously prior to their appointment on regular basis. 8. By the aforesaid decision the Irrigation Department had taken a decision to absorp the persons working as Paribharamaks, Seasonal Sanghrahaks, Seasonal Amin and Seasonal Moharrir as regular employees with the condition being that they should have worked for five years continuously prior to their appointment on regular basis. 8. Under the circumstances this court finds that in fact at the very initial stage of the petitioners appointment he had met with the criteria of working continuously for five years and as such his appointment was made in 1980s. Subsequent breakof service was due to the orders of termination issued by the department and as such those orders of termination depriving the petitioner of continuity in service on temporary/seasonal basis cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner by order impugned. The petitioner cannot be deprived from absorption for reasons which were beyond his control. 9. I accordingly quash the impugned order contained in Annexure 21 and direct respondent No.4 to pass an appropriate orders in accordance with the observations made in this judgment absorbing the petitioner in service. I make it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay but his service would be counted to be regular and continuous since 31.1.1985 for all other purposes. 10. In the result this writ petition is allowed.