JUDGMENT 1. - Today, this case has come up upon application filed for early hearing. With consent of both the sides, however, the matter Is finally heard. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 20.02.2008 (Annex.-3) passed by respondent No.2 and prayed for direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 3. As per facts of the case, an advertisement was published on 03.04.2007 whereby applications were invited for appointment on the temporary post of Class IV employee under the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe in the pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200. In pursuance of the said advertisement, an application was filed by the petitioner and, after appearing in the interview before the selection committee constituted in this behalf, on 20.04.2007, the petitioner was selected and provided appointment on the same day as Class IV employee on the temporary post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. 4. After joining the petitioner continued on the said post but, all of a sudden, an order was issued by respondent No.2 whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with for the reason that In appeal No. 39/04, in the administrative side, order of compulsory retirement of one Deen Dayal Dubey dated 30.01.2004 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dholpur was set aside and he was ordered to be treated In service and matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration and for awarding lesser punishment than the punishment awarded vide order dated 30.01.2004 by which Deen Dayal Dubey was given compulsory retirement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the order submits that the reasons for terminating the services of the petitioner are totally contrary to law because Deen Dayal Dubey whose appeal was allowed by the High Court in the administrative side was general category candidate whereas the petitioner was appointed under the category of Scheduled Tribe and, at the time of Issuing advertisement it was nowhere mentioned in the advertisement that this vacancy arose due to compulsory retirement of Deen Dayal Dubey. 6. 6. Further, it is pointed out that Deen Dayal Dubey was compulsorily retired by way of punishment on 30.01.2004 whereas the petitioner was provided appointment under advertisement dated 03.04.2007, that too, against temporary vacancy of Class IV employee meant for Scheduled Tribe candidate, therefore, the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner for the reason that appeal of Deen Dayal Dubey was allowed is not sustainable in law. More so, the order is totally unconstitutional because the post was advertised for reserved category of Scheduled Tribe for which the petitioner was selected and provided appointment whereas the order of compulsory retirement was set aside in appeal in the administrative side by the High Court, therefore, the order impugned suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be quashed and petitioner may be reinstated in service. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there was no vacancy in existence under the Judgeship of Dholpur, therefore, to comply with the order passed in appeal of Deen Dayal Dubey the services of the petitioner were dispensed with upon which Deen Dayal Dubey was reinstated, therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality is committed by respondent No. 2 in any manner. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and advertisement under which the petitioner was provided appointed. 9. Admittedly an advertisement was issued on 03.04.2007 (Annex.-1) for appointment on the post of Class IV employee whereby applications were invited from the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner's candidature was considered and after due selection, he was provided appointment on the said post. It is true that another Class IV employee Deen Dayal Dubey was compulsorily retired vide order dated 30.01.2004 and he was reinstated in service in pursuance of order dated 12.12.2007 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Rathore on the administrative side in appeal No.39/04; but, in that order, it is nowhere ordered that for reinstatement of Deen Dayal Dubey the services of other person may be dispensed with. More so, it is observed in the order that the delinquent-appellant be treated as continuing in service and other lesser punishment may be imposed than the punishment inflicted. 10. More so, it is observed in the order that the delinquent-appellant be treated as continuing in service and other lesser punishment may be imposed than the punishment inflicted. 10. It is worthwhile to observe that Deen Dayal Dubey belongs to general category, therefore, there was no occasion for terminating the services of the petitioner who was appointed against the temporary post of Class IV under the category of Scheduled Tribe. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear from the facts that services of the petitioner have been terminated on baseless ground whereby bread and butter of reserved category candidate of Scheduled Tribe have been snatched. If the order passed in appeal filed by Deen Dayal Dubey was to be complied with, then, obviously he was to be reinstated in service as general category and cannot be reinstated against the vacancy of reserved category post and, in the absence of general category vacancy, supernumerary post was to be created for him. But, instead of making compliance of the order in its true sense, the services of the petitioner have been terminated which is totally illegal action of the respondents. 11. It is also Important to observe that Deen Dayal Dubey who was working on the post of Class IV employee against the post of General category was penalised with the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 30.01.2004 whereas appointment of the petitioner was made in pursuance of advertisement issued for appointment against the Scheduled Tribe category by respondents on 03.04.2007, therefore, the post upon which the petitioner was appointed has nothing to do with the post which Deen Dayal Dubey was holding. On this count also, this writ petition deserves acceptance. 12. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20.02.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. *******