JUDGMENT PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The appellant is a registered Non-Government Educational Institute and has been accorded sanction by the NCTE to conduct B.Ed. Courses. The State of Rajasthan granted administrative sanction to create on temporary basis two posts of Reader. 2. The respondent applied for being appointed as a Reader and vide letter of offer dated 11.9.1999 was offered appointment as a Reader. The letter records that it was being issued pursuant to he being selected by the Selection Committee and that he would be placed in the pay scale Rs. 9000-300-14400 plus dearness allowance and the house rent allowance. At the initiation basic pay would be Rs. 9000/- p.m. The letter also records that the offer was on contract basis, and suffice would it be to clarify at this stage itself that meaningfully read, evinced by the fact that the respondent was placed in a pay scale and every year increment in the time scale of pay was granted, the letter of offering appointment has to be treated as one offering appointment on temporary basis and not on contract basis. Further, the letter does not refer to any fixed period of service. It records that the appointment was to the post duly sanctioned by the Government of Rajasthan. 3. The respondent continued to work as a Reader till when on 31.8.2007 i.e. after 7 years of working service was terminated. One month salary in sum of 23,727/- was tendered by way of a cheque. The order terminating the service does not record any reasons. 4. The respondent filed a writ petition pleading that his appointment, albeit temporary, has continued for 7 years and since the post in question continued to exist there was no reason to terminate his service. 5. The appellants filed a reply stating that on 24.8.2007 a female colleague named Sarita Sharma had made a complaint against the respondent who was asked to submit his explanation thereto before an enquiry committee constituted. The notice was issued on 24.8.2007 itself. Required to appear before the Enquiry Committee and respond to the notice, the respondent submitted his explanation on 25.8.2007 and denied the allegations made against him in the complaint. After hearing the respondent the Committee submitted the report to the Principal on the same day i.e. 25.8.2007 and based thereon service of the respondent was terminated. 6. Required to appear before the Enquiry Committee and respond to the notice, the respondent submitted his explanation on 25.8.2007 and denied the allegations made against him in the complaint. After hearing the respondent the Committee submitted the report to the Principal on the same day i.e. 25.8.2007 and based thereon service of the respondent was terminated. 6. Vide impugned order dated 24th January, 2008, dealing with the preliminary submission whether the appellant was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and holding that it was, the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned termination order dated 31.8.2007. The reasoning is as under:- "11. In first complaint it is alleged that petitioner verbally quarreled with one Miss Santosh Jain and that is why she lodged a complaint of petitioner's mis-behaviour with her. The another complaint is a complaint lodged by one colleague of the petitioner working in the same institution, which appears to be also with respect to some utterance of the words to Sarita Sharma by the petitioner. The explanation was sought from the petitioner on the same day with respect to the incident which took place with Smt. Sarita Sharma at about 10.35 PM in the college premises and the committee was constituted on the same day. Be that as it may be, the explanation was called from the petitioner at 3.45 PM and he was asked to submit his explanation by 5.00 PM on the same day. The allegations were denied by the petitioner in writing and, thereafter, it is alleged that on the same day i.e., on 25.8.2007 inquiry was completed and in the inquiry report it is mentioned that the petitioner admitted his guilt but to hide the truth, he denied the allegations in his reply. In the inquiry report it is stated that one Antia Tetarwal Ex-B.Ed student was also present at the time of incident and she corroborated and supported the allegation of Smt. Sarita Sharma. The inquiry committee even observed that in explanation, the petitioner gave names of some persons, but they were not present at the time of incident. It is nowhere stated when the matter was inquired by the inquiry committee so as to record the statement of various persons named in the inquiry report whose presence has been denied by the inquiry committee. It is nowhere stated when the matter was inquired by the inquiry committee so as to record the statement of various persons named in the inquiry report whose presence has been denied by the inquiry committee. Be that as it may be, it has been submitted by the respondent that in view of the inquiry report, the inquiry order was passed and this order is dated 29.8.2007 and the same has been marked as confidential. The respondent even failed to disclose as to how and when the order dated 29.8.2007 was served upon the petitioner. The allegations on the basis of which, the petitioner's services have been terminated also speaks volumes against the respondent as the harassest possible order has been passed against the petitioner in the impugned order." 7. Arguing the appeal Shri J.P.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel did not argue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the appointment was on contract and thus no principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. Contract employment can be terminated by the employer as per the contract. With reference to the letter of offering appointment learned Senior Counsel drew attention to the fact that it clearly recorded that the appointment could be terminated with one month notice. 8. In respect of said contention, as noted hereinabove, the letter of offering appointment does make a reference to the appointment being contractual but at the same time it places the respondent in a pay scale and concededly every year increment as per the pay scale was granted to the respondent. Further, it is the admitted position that the post sanctioned by the Government was a temporary post and continued to exist till when the impugned termination order was passed. The letter offering appointment does not stipulate the period of appointment. Meaningfully read, the letter offers appointment against a temporary post and thus tenure of appointment would be till the temporary post existed. The analogy could be had from the Fundamental Rules which define a temporary post to mean a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time. Temporary posts are very often outside the cadre and are generally for one year; renewed from year to year, although some of them may be created for a certain specified duration. The analogy could be had from the Fundamental Rules which define a temporary post to mean a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time. Temporary posts are very often outside the cadre and are generally for one year; renewed from year to year, although some of them may be created for a certain specified duration. In the instant case the only material before us is that the post of Reader was sanctioned as a temporary post by the State of Rajasthan. Meaning thereby, the post would continue till the sanction continued and funds were made available. 9. Notwithstanding the impugned termination order being non-stigmatic, but admittedly it was preceded by a show cause notice issued to the respondent and an enquiry held. The factual narratives concerning enquiry, as reproduced by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute and suffice it to state that the so-called enquiry is a farce. No witness was examined. Sarita Sharma, the complainant was not produced as a witness. The statement of one student was recorded in the absence of the respondent. The file of the appellants shows that decision to terminate was on the basis of the adverse report. 10. It is thus apparent that the impugned termination order is penal in nature. Respondent, as held by the learned Single Judge, was denied opportunity of proper hearing. 11. Before bringing the curtains down we would decide Civil Misc. Application No.1825/2018 wherein additional facts with material are sought to be brought on record. In the application it is stated that for the post in question i.e. Reader essential qualifications were a Doctorate Degree in Education or a Postgraduate Degree in Education in first/second class with 5 years teaching experience. As per the application after respondent's services were terminated information was sought from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, UP as per which the respondent had obtained 268 marks in the Secondary School Examination and not 298 which he claimed to have obtained. Similar allegations of interpolation in the intermediate school examination mark sheets have been made. Similar allegations are made with respect to the Graduate and Master's Degree obtained by the respondent. 12. Similar allegations of interpolation in the intermediate school examination mark sheets have been made. Similar allegations are made with respect to the Graduate and Master's Degree obtained by the respondent. 12. Suffice it to state that this material has been gathered by the appellants and relates to the authenticity of the mark-sheets submitted by the respondent and cannot be considered by us, for the reason it is an independent material concerning respondent's initial appointment and not regarding respondent being terminated from service. 13. We thus do not look into the material placed along with the application which is dismissed. The appellants would be entitled to proceed against the respondent in independent proceedings concerning said material. 14. The appeal is dismissed.