jTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.11395 AND 11420 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions and the respondents are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The 2nd respondent – Punjab National Bank, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, represented by its Deputy General Bank, sent requisition to the District Employment Exchange, Prakasam District, for sending the candidates, for ﬁlling up the posts of Sub Staﬀ in the 3rd respondent – Punjab National Bank, Edara Branch, Mundlamur mandal, Prakasam District. Accordingly, the District Employment Exchange, sent the names of the candidates, including the names of the present petitioners, for the post of Sub-Staﬀ. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent – Bank, sent call letters on 20.02.2010 and conducted the interviews on 7.01.2011. The petitioners attend the interview and got selected for the said post and joined in service on 28.1.2011 and 29.1.2011 respectively. Now by the impugned order dated 31.3.2011, issued by the 4th respondent – Chief Manager, the services of the petitioners were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before terminating the services of the petitioners, no enquiry was conducted and no reasons were also given in the impugned order. As per the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit, the reason for termination of the services of the petitioners is that they possess higher qualiﬁcations than the prescribed. He contended that no notiﬁcation was issued prescribing the qualiﬁcations and the Bank called for the candidates from the Employment Exchange and accordingly, the names of the petitioners were sponsored and they attended the interview and got selected. Possessing higher qualiﬁcations, cannot disentitle the petitioners from being appointed to the post of Sub Staﬀ. He submitted that as the petitioners were given appointment orders in the respondent – Bank, though they were gainfully employed elsewhere, they resigned those jobs and joined in the Bank and now by the impugned order, without any reasons and without conducting enquiry, they were terminated from service and the same is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. With these averments, he sought to set aside the impugned order of termination and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service with all consequential benefits. 5. The respondent - Bank ﬁled counter aﬃdavit and the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank based on the counter submitted that the qualiﬁcation prescribed for the post of a Sub- Staﬀ is 12th class. The petitioners possess higher qualiﬁcation and this was not noticed at the time of their appointment and, therefore, in exercise of the discretion as mentioned in the appointment order at paragraph no.2, the petitioners were terminated without assigning reasons and by paying one month’s pay in lieu of notice and hence there are no merits in the writ petitions and sought to dismiss the same. 6. From the above material on record, it could be seen that there is no disputed that the names of the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the petitioners attend the interview and got selected for the post of Sub-Staﬀ and joined in service on 28.1.2011 and 29.1.2011 respectively. Now by the impugned order, they were terminated. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons were assigned for terminating the services of the petitioners. For better appreciation, the relevant portion in the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 in W.P.No.11420/2011, is extracted as under: “It has been decided by the authorities to terminate you from the services of the Bank with immediate eﬀect on payment of one month’s basic pay and allowance in lieu of notice period, as per terms and conditions contained in the appointment order dated 20th January, 2011. Accordingly, your are hereby relived from the services of the Bank.” 7. As already noticed above, no reasons are assigned for terminating the services of the petitioners. It is well settled that before terminating the services of an employee, it is the incumbent upon the employer to state the reasons and an enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice, shall be conducted. In the present case, no enquiry was conducted and no reasons are given for termination. 8. In the counter aﬃdavits, the respondents sought to justify the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioners possess higher qualiﬁcation than required and hence they were terminated. It is well settled that the impugned order shall contain the reasons for termination and they cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit. 9. The fact on record is that both the writ petitioners are physically challenged. Further, as per the case of the petitioners, which is not denied in the counter aﬃdavits, the petitioners were gainfully employed elsewhere and pursuant to the sponsoring of their names, they attend the interviews and were selected and by resigning their earlier jobs, joined in the respondent – Bank. The notiﬁcation for ﬁlling up the posts was not by way of paper publication. There is no material on record to show that there is any speciﬁc mention, in the requisition sent to the District Employment Exchange not to sponsor the candidates for the post of Sub-Staﬀ with higher qualiﬁcations. As the names of the petitioners were sponsored, they attend the interview, where the qualiﬁcations and other eligibility criteria were scrutinized and appointment orders were issued. Therefore, a legitimate expectation will accrue to the petitioners that they would be continued in the service of the respondent – Bank, till they attain the age of superannuation. Such right cannot be taken away without valid reasons. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders of termination dated 31.3.2011 cannot be sustained and the same are set aside and consequently, the 4th respondent – Chief Manager, shall pass appropriate orders reinstating the petitioners into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 07—12—2011