Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1321/2001 (Old No. 39842 / 1993) Raghunath Singh ........Petitioner Versus Addl. Direcotor, Animal Husbandry, Chamoli & others .........Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 01.04.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager in the Animal Husbandary Department in March, 1989. Thereafter a regular selection was held against regular and substantive vacancies of Class IV in which daily rated employees including the petitioner were given preference. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and was appointed on Class IV post of Messenger vide appointment letter dated 27.3.1993 against the regular and substantive vacancy in the Animal Husbandry Department, District Chamoli, Thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dated 1.4.1993, which is contained as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. No reason has been assigned in the impugned order for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. The petition is of the year 1993. No counter affidavit has been filed till date. 2. Undisputedly, the appointment was temporary one. The main ground of challenge is that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor any show cause notice was served before passing the impugned order, which is clear cut violation of principle of natural justice. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.4.1993 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that it shall remain open to the respondents to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh