Khalid, J.

1. This Appeal By Special Leave Is Directed Against The Judgment Rendered By a Division Bench Of The Calcutta High Court On .., Setting Aside, In Appeal, The Judgment Of a Learned Single Judge. The Union Of India, Its Officers Are The. The Facts In Brief, Necessary To Understand The Dispute Involved In The Case Are As Follows:, TheJoined The Post Of Stores Officer In The Department Of The Zoological Survey Of India On July, . He Was Placed On Probation, The Main Question Debated At The Bar By The Respective Is Whether In The Case Of TheIt Was Incumbent Upon The Authorities To Pay Notice Salary Along, The Termination Notice Or Whether It Was Sufficient If He Was In, Thes trongly Pleaded That He Was Appointed To a Substantive Post Since He Was Placed On Probation. If His Appointment Was Purely Temporary It Was Not Necessary To Place Him On Probation. m e Case Of TheOn The Other Hand Was That The Order Of Appointment Itself Indicated That TheWas Appointed As a Temporary Hand, That He Did Not Become a Regular Hand Simply Because He Was Put On Probation. m e Termination In This Case Took Place Be, We May, In Passing, Indicate As To What Was The Case Of TheBe, TheAppeared In Person Be, Now, Coming To The Merits Of The Case The Order Of Appointment Of TheIs Produced As Annexure-A. Mis Shows That He Was Appointed On a Temporary Basis. It Is Made Clear Therein That Though The Post Is Temporary, It Is Likely To Continue Indefinitely, That The Appointment Will Be Liable To Be Terminated At Any Time On One Months Notice Given By Either Side, Thus He Will Be On Probation, The Learned Single Judge Who Heard The Writ Petition, Held That TheWas a Temporary Government Servant, That He Was Governed By Rule, Of The Central Civil Service, Temporary Service, Rules, . Rule, b, As Amended, Provided In Its Proviso That On Termination Of a Temporary Government Servant, One Months Notice Has To Be Given, That He Shall Be Entitled To Claim a Sum Equivalent To The Pay, Allowances, It Is Not Disputed That The Salary, The Proviso To Rule, The Learned Single Judge Relied Upon The Amended Proviso To Rule, Of The Rules, Held That Though The Pay, Allowances Was Not Paid Or Tendered Simultaneously, The Service Of The Order Of Termination, The Same Did Not Vitiate The Termination Of Thes Service. It Was This Finding That Was Successfully Challenged Be, The Division Bench Addressed Itself To The Question Whether The Amended Provisions Of The Proviso To Rule, Applied To The Case Of TheOr Not. In Coming To The Conclusion That The Order Of Termination Was Bad, The Division Bench Relied Upon The Terms Contained In The Order Of Appointment In The Notification Dated .. Which Clarified The Operation Of Rule Of The Rules, The Division Bench Relied Upon This Notification, Held That The Said Notification Excluded The Operation Of Rule, Including The Proviso Thereto In The Case Of The Petitioner Whose Service Was Terminated During The Period Of Probation. The Division Bench Did Not Agree, The Contention Of The Union Of India That The Notification Did Not Apply To The Case Of t Heince In Its View The Terms Of Appointment Clearly Indicated That He Could Be Terminated Only If The Salary, The Effect Of Rule Of The Rules Fell To Be Considered By This Court In Two Decisions, Viz. Senior Superintendent, R.M.S. v. K.V. Gopinath, [] S.C.R., R. Kumar v. Union Of India, [] S.C.R. . TheRelied Strongly Upon The Following Observations Reported In, S.C.R At Page, This Decision Was Rendered On February, . It Was The Validity Of An Order Dated September, Terminating TheTherein, That Was In Question In That Case. We Would Like To Observe, Respect, That The Amendment Brought Into Rule, Effect From May, Escaped The Notice Of The Bench That Decided That Case. The Error Was Subsequently Corrected By Another Bench Of This Court In The Decision In Rajkumar v. Union Of India, Supra, By Stating:, The Effect Of This Amendment Is That On st May, As Also On .., The Date On Which Thes Services Were Terminated, The Powers Of The Government Under Art. Of The Constitution To Make Rules Regulating The Service Conditions Of The Government Employees Cannot, In Any Manner, Be Fettered By Any Agreement.

2. The Judgment under appeal has, therefore, to be set aside and we do so. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

3. We repeat what we have stated above. The respondent has been sent out for reasons which we cannot decide in the absence of necessary materials. We suggested to the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Tyagarajan, to provide the respondent with some job . The Counsel, in fairness, agreed to consult his clients. Though our Judgment was ready long ago, we gave time to the appellants Counsel here on three occasions, to explore the possibility of providing some job to the respondent. Nothing tangible has happened. We still hope that this young man will be provided with some job in the department.

4. Appeal allowed.