Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ
1. Heard counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents-State.
2. Annexure P/1 dated 17.04.2012 is a communication made to the Petitioner by virtue of which his earlier order of appointment was held to be illegal
and a new exercise for fresh appointment was taken by the Respondent authorities.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on the basis of their earlier engagement on sanctioned vacant post and long continuance and period of work, they
came to be appointed on a regular establishment, however, for reasons best known to the Respondents they suddenly decided to annul that position
and reappoint the Petitioner subsequently for later year by virtue of the order impugned.
4. Besides other arguments made on behalf of the Petitioner one of his submission is that since such a decision has serious civil consequences for him.
A unilateral decision without opportunity of hearing could not be passed against him because a settled position cannot be unilaterally unsettled behind
the back of the Petitioner.
5. There is no argument made that the impugned order contained in Annexure P/1 was not an unilateral order whatever be the justification offered
now by the State and in violation of principle of natural justice.
6. Since the said decision has been taken and communicated to the Petitioner in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order
dated 17.04.2012 and 20.01.2012 (Annexure-P/2) stand quashed.
7. Writ application is allowed.
