IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16604 of 2010 KAPIL DEO MEHTA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 25/10/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2010 cancelling the selection grade promotion on the post of correspondence clerk granted to him with effect from 1.10.1986 by an order dated 12.5.1987 and directing recovery of excess payment made pursuant thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the grant of Junior Selection Grade the revised pay scale had also been fixed and paid with retrospective effect. The only ground mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion as he had not passed the Accounts Examination. It is submitted that subsequently the petitioner has passed the Accounts Examination. The last submission is that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice specifically asserted in paragraph-19 of the writ application. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the impugned order submits that it has been passed in - 2 - pursuance of certain directions contained in a letter dated 9.12.2006, but is unable to demonstrate from the impugned order the reasons as may have been contained in the order dated 9.12.2006 or that the petitioner had been given a show cause notice before cancellation of the Junior Selection Grade done nearly 23 years later. The petitioner has stated in paragraph-14 of the writ application that he has subsequently cleared the Accounts Examination, but no date or the year of the passing has been made. Additionally, issues of equity may also arise in cancellation of an order of promotion granted more than 23 years ago when it is the case of the petitioner that there has been no misrepresentation by him. Reading the specific assertion in paragraph- 19 of the writ application coupled with the absence of any recital in the impugned order of a prior show cause notice given to the petitioner before cancellation of the promotion, the Court is prima facie satisfied that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is like a still born child. It never comes into existence. If the authorities insist on arrogating unto themselves powers which the law does not vest them with, this Court has little option but to set aside such - 3 - orders. The order dated 14.1.2010 is therefore set aside insofar as the present petitioner alone is concerned. If so advised, the respondents may issue a show cause notice afresh to the petitioner in accordance with law and then determine the matter in the manner as discussed above and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)