JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 5-12-80 (Annx. 4) and order dated 2-12-80 (Annx. 5) petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred to as the Corporation) on temporary basis by the order dated 1-9-1979 petitioner came to know that his services are likely to be terminated on account of overage on the dale he was given appointment. Therefore, he made an application to the Chairman of the Corporation praying that his upper age may be relaxed so as to regularise the appointment. The Chairman passed the order stating that the work of the petitioner is satisfactory and hence he finds no objection to the age limit being relaxed. But Divisional Manager by his order dated 25-9-1980 terminated the services of the petitioner with one month’s notice. This order was superceded vide order dated 14 10-1980 in view of the Chairman’s order. By the order dated 16-10-1980, petitioner was made permanent on the post of Conductor. On 5th December, 1980 he was informed that his services has been terminated under the orders of Additional General Manager. It is alleged that his order has been issued persuant to the order of the Additional General Manager, dated 2-12-80. Petitioner made demand of justice by sending telegram but without any result. Thereafter, petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging all these orders. Neither return has been filed in or any reason has been shown that on what grounds services of the petitioner have sought to be terminated, since the petitioner’s upper age limit has been relaxed by the Chairman and it has not been disclosed in any of the orders that on what ground his services are being terminated. No return has been filed disclosing the reasons for the termination.
2. Thus, in the result, I allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 5-12-80. Petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits.