WP(C) 4310/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. B. D . Das, learned Standing counsel, ASEB, appearing on behalf of the respondents. By an order, dated 30.08.2001, issued by the Power Station Superintenden t, Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, the petitioner was appointed, along with so me others, as a temporary Part-time Sanitary Cleaner, on a consolidated pay of R s. 900/-, per month, with effect from 01.09.2001. This appointment was subject to a clear condition, as is evident from the order, dated 30.08.2001, aforementi oned, that the person concerned shall attend to his duties, at least, 4 hours a day. Following a case, which was registered by the police, on 08.08.2004, as Pragjyotishpur Police Station Case No. 44/2004, under Section 306 IPC, the petit ioner was arrested on 09.08.2004 in connection thereof. When the petitioner was still in custody, an order was issued, on 14.09.2004, by the Power Station Supe rintendent, Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, discontinuing the petitioner’s tem porary engagement on the ground that the petitioner had been in custody, as inti mated by the Officer-in-Charge, Pragjyotishpur Police Station. Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.09.2004, discontinuing the petitioner’s engagem ent as temporary Sanitary Cleaner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions t o be issued to the respondents for his re-engagement as Sanitary Cleaner. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the order , dated 30.08.2001, clearly lays down the condition that the petitioner, as some other appointees, must render, at least 4 hours of duty in a day. The petition er could not have, admittedly, attended to his duties being in police custody an d, the condition of appointment having been violated, though may be as a result of the arrest of the petitioner by police, the respondent No. 4, namely, Power S tation Superintendent, Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, cannot be said to have acted illegally in terminating the petitioner’s temporary appointment. This apa rt, the petitioner’s appointment was inherently temporary in nature. His appoin tment having not been made against any post, there was no legal impediment for t he respondent No. 4 to issue order of discontinuance of the petitioner’s engagem ent. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that five other persons we re also appointed along with the petitioner and they are still continuing to wor k and, hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitione r has been discriminated. While considering this aspect of the submission, it needs to be noted that the s aid five persons, who had been appointed along with the petitioner, were not arr ested and/or taken under police custody as in the case of the petitioner. The p etitioner being, thus, not similarly placed as his co-appointees, cannot challen ge the order of termination on the ground of discrimination. It is also submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that no Charge-sheet has yet been submitted in the case aforementioned. Suffice it to point out, in this reg ard, that there is no averment in the writ petition, or in the affidavit, filed by the petitioner, that no Charge-sheet has been submitted yet in the case afore mentioned. This apart, even if no Charge-sheet has been submitted, it would not make the order of termination of the petitioner’s engagement, dated 14.09.2000, which is, otherwise, legal, an illegal one. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any ca se warranting interference by this Court with the impugned order of termination of the petitioner’s engagement, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction un der Section 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, fa ils and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed.