WP(C) 397/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A. Maleque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard M r. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents. The petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and posted at Uparhali High School of Kamrup District by appointment order dated 30.3.01 (Annexure-3), challenges the order dated 20.12.03 (Annexure-12), whereby the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department has directed termination of his servic e, on the ground that the petitioner and some others were not duly selected by t he District Level Selection Board, Kamrup and the appointments were illegal. By referring to the appointment order of the petitioner, the learned counsel poi nts out that the petitioner was appointed only after he was selected by the Dist rict Level Selection Board and therefore Mr. Maleque contends that there is no b asis for ordering termination of his service on the purported ground of non-sele ction. The petitioner further submits that if an opportunity would have been aff orded to the petitioner, he could have substantiated his selection and in that e vent there would have been no occasion for ordering termination of his service. However, the learned standing counsel, Education Department Mr. Goswami contends that the appointment was given to the petitioner by the District Inspector of S chools, without due authority since the then existing ban on appointment was onl y selectably lifted on 25.3.01, and it was not lifted for the post in which the petitioner was appointed. This contention of the respondent is not supported by any counter affidavit. Furthermore, the reason reflected for termination was all eged non-selection of the petitioner and not on the ground that appointment was given while a ban on appointment was in force. In such circumstances, it is diff icult to accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Goswami. Be that as it may, considering that no opportunity was given to the petitioner b efore the impugned order was passed, I am of the opinion that this petition dese rves to be allowed as the right of the petitioner to continue in service was tak en away, without affording any opportunity to the affected person. The petitioner is continuing in service on the strength of the interim orders p assed by this Court and accordingly this writ petition stands allowed by quashin g the impugned order dated 20.12.03 (Annexure-12). However, if there is any illegality in the appointment of the petitioner, the re spondents are given the liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with la w, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The case is disposed of accordingly.