Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The order further stated that he may be paid one months pay in lieu of the numberice.
Hence, the present appeal.
Both the tribunal and the High Court held that the service of the respondent was temporary.
The High Court on the same ground affirmed the view of the Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 28.9.1989 on the ground that there was numberviolation of Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India.
Aggrieved thereby, he filed an application before the State Public Services Tribunal.
The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who is Deputy Inspector General of Police.
While he was undergoing training he was terminated by an order dated 15.2.1983 termination simpliciter by resorting to Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants Termination of Service Rule, 1975 hereinafter the Rules .
It is number in dispute that his regular appointment was to be preceded by the successful companypletion of training.
K. Sema, J. Page 2458 Heard the parties.
This appeal is preferred by the State of U.P. against an order of the High Court affirming the order of tribunal.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The respondent was recruited as companystable and he was undergoing training.
