JUDGMENT
A.P. Ravani, J.
1. The petitioner was employed as an armed constable. As per order dated July 7, 1980 he was employed on temporary basis on the conditions mentioned in the order. The petitioner’s services have been terminated by order annexure-D dated August 31, 1981 on the ground that his services were not required. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of this order.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to go into any other contention except one, namely, that the petitioner’s services have been terminated while his juniors are retained in service. This fact is not controverted by the respondents. On the contrary, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply it is admitted that juniors to the petitioner are continued in service. It is contended that on that ground there is no discrimination because “every individual is enlisted on probation of two years and each case has to be judged separately”. The contention raised by the respondents that the petitioner is employed on probation for a period of two years is not fortified by the record. The appointment order annexure-A clearly shows that the petitioner has been appointed on temporary basis. There is nothing in the order to indicate that his appointment was on probation for two years. The Learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the provisions of Rule 70(6) of the Gujarat Police Manual. The relevant part of the said rule indicates that in case of head constables and constables appointment will be made on probation for two years. It is true that the aforesaid provision of the Gujarat Police Manual enables the authority to make appointment of constables on probation for a period of two years. But it does not mean that each and every appointment of constable or head constable is always on probation for a period of two years. In the instant case the order of appointment does not show that the appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years. It is very clear that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioner’s services could not have been terminated while retaining his juniors in service.
3. In such type of cases the respondent authorities ought to have followed the provisions of Rule 89 of the Gujarat Police Manual. Clause (3) of Rule 89 clearly provides that temporary Government servants may “be discharged from service, if necessary, in strict order of juniority and no person should be arbitrarily discharged, without regard to his seniority”. In view of this provision of the rule it is clear that the action of the respondent authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner is against the aforesaid rule and it is clearly arbitrary action which violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no satisfactory explanation for adopting such an arbitrary course of action.
4. In the result the petition is required to be allowed. The impugned order annexure-B terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take back the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as they may be available to him under law. The respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions on or before October 15, 1986. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.