THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1496 OF 2002 DATED APRIL, 2010 BETWEEN P.Ram Babu … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1496 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner, a Record Assistant in the National Senior Basic School, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the second respondent, challenges the proceeding dated 08.01.2002 cancelling his appointment order and seeks a consequential declaration that he is entitled to continue as a Record Assistant with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Record Assistant in the second respondent School under order dated 18.06.2001 in the time- scale of Rs.1535-2840 with entitlement to D.A. and H.R.A. as per rules. The proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, dated 14.06.2001 demonstrate that the post of Record Assistant in the second respondent School was duly sanctioned. Pursuant to his appointment the petitioner joined duty and his service book was also opened. The second respondent School, under letter dated 12.08.2001, sought sanction of additional expenditure to the tune of Rs.25,865/- owing to the appointment of the petitioner as a Record Assistant. Responding thereto, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, sanctioned the additional amount of Rs.25,865/- towards establishment charges, under proceedings dated 03.09.2001. The aforestated facts find mention in the affidavit and are duly supported by the material placed on record. While so, under the impugned proceeding dated 08.01.2002, the appointment order dated 18.06.2001 pertaining to the petitioner was cancelled with immediate effect by the respondent School. The impugned proceeding reflects that during the review meeting held in November, 2001 the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s appointment was irregular, being without specific orders from him and being in violation of the ban orders on recruitment and relevant rules. The complaint of the petitioner before this Court is that he was not put on notice before such action was taken. The second respondent School filed a counter admitting the facts aforestated. The defence put forth to support the impugned proceeding is that the Executive Officer of the second respondent School at that time (since deceased) acted in violation of the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, without examining the financial position of the institution and the relevant rules. With regard to the failure in putting the petitioner on notice, it is stated that no notice needed to be issued before the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment as the appointment itself was irregular and in violation of the ban orders. Sri N.Gurugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the unreported Judgment dated 17.06.2002 of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6166 of 2002. Therein, the appointment of a Junior Assistant-cum-Attender was cancelled on the ground that the same was irregular. No notice had been given to the appointee, as in the present case. The learned single Judge did not find favour with such action and observed: “………… But the fact that there is prima facie illegality or irregularity in the initial appointment of the petitioner, does not ipso facto relieve the respondents of the obligation to comply with the principles of natural justice which are evolved as a matter of public law principle over centuries of dynamic jurisprudential process to safeguard persons in public office from arbitrary, whimsical or capricious exercise of power. No danger is caused to public interest necessitating terminating the services of the petitioner in unseemly haste and in violation of the principles of natural justice. There is nothing on record to suggest that any action has been initiated against the persons found responsible for the so called illegal appointment of the petitioner either. In the totality of circumstances above, I am of the considered view that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 20.02.2002 terminating the services of the petitioner forthwith, without affording him a notice or opportunity, is void ab initio. …………” I find myself in complete agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned Judge, extracted supra. It is to be noticed that the Endowments Department had itself sanctioned the additional establishment charges resulting from the petitioner’s appointment responding to the letter dated 12.08.2001 addressed by the second respondent School. In the light of the inaction of the Endowments Department in taking necessary action at that time, the respondents cannot claim immunity from compliance with the principles of natural justice. The prejudice caused to the petitioner by violation of the principles of natural justice is manifest as he was caught completely unaware by the sudden dispensation of his services. The issue is therefore squarely covered by the Judgment in Writ Petition No.6166 of 2002. The order dated 08.01.2002 cancelling the petitioner’s appointment is accordingly set aside. It is however to be noticed that the petitioner remained out of the service of the second respondent School since the said date and it is not his case that he remained unemployed during this period. In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the second respondent School to reinstate the petitioner in service as a Record Assistant without back wages but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ APRIL, 2010. VGSR