however by an order dated may 18 1966 his services were terminated again.
meanwhile in june 1973 he was allowed to cross the second efficiency bar.
the appellant was reinstated with the benefit of companytinuity of service.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 7 5 1976 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 9/76.
on a writ petition filed by him in the allahabad high court the termination order was quashed by the high companyrt on august 8 1969.
the state of uttar pradesh appealed and a division bench of the high companyrt has by its order dated may 7 1976 allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.
although he had served for about fifteen years several representation made by him to the state government for his companyfirmation met with numberresponse and he companytinued to remain a temporary government servant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j this appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant against the order of the allahabad high companyrt dismissing his writ petition challenging an order of companypulsory retirement.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1296 of 1978.
his troubles did number end there.
but on august 2 1974 the state government made an order companypulsorily retiring the appellant from service.
the order was assailed by the appellant by a writ petition and a learned single judge of the high companyrt allowed the writ petition on september 17 1975 and quashing the order he declared that the appellant companytinued to remain in service.
the appellant was appointed by the government of uttar pradesh in numberember 1954 as a temporary judicial officer.
the state government terminated his services in december 1962 but on representation made by him the termination order was withdrawn on january 16 1963.
the appellant rejoined service and resumed his duties.
s. saksena in person n. dikshit and m. v. goswami for the respondent.
