H.C.P. Tripathi, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary village level worker in the year 1961. On June 21, 1967, the Additional District Magistrate, Unnao, passed an order terminating his services on one month's notice. This writ petition is directed against that order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order amounts to an order of punishment and as the petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause, the order is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution. The second point urged in support of the petition is that as certain village level workers iunior in service to the petitioner have been retained while the petitioner's services have been dispensed with there is an infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution. I find no force in any one of these contentions.
3. Admittedly petitioner was a temporary hand. The impugned order in terms does not leave any stigma on him. It is an innocuous order dispensing with the services of the petitioner on one month's notice. It is settled law that where the order is such that does not leave any stain on the employee, the court will not go behind the order to find out its background.
4. In support of his contention that Article 16 of the Constitution has been infringed in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench of this court in the case of Gopal Prasad Singh v. The Dy. Director of Medical and Health Services U. P., 1968 All LJ 735. That decision, in my opinion, does not help the petitioner. On the other hand, it has been observed, in the aforesaid decision, that when the services of a temporary employee are terminated without assigning any reason, the motive operating in the mind of the authority is irrelevant. It has been observed further in the aforesaid case that:
'The termination of services of a temporary employee or reversion of an officiating employee from a higher post to his lower substantive post, while retaining his juniors in service or in the higher post, as the case may be, would be hit by Article 16 only where such termination is necessitated by exigencies of service, e. g., retrenchment following abolition of posts, availability of permanent incumbents for appointment to the posts on their return from deputation or leave. There would be no infringement of Article 16 if the services of a temporary employee are terminated ..... on the ground of unsuitability. It is thus obvious that the aforesaid Division Bench Decision, in fact, is against the petitioner.
5. There is no force In this petition and it is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.