COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 1397/2002 Karan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Irrigation & Others …….Respondents Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2nd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The petitioner was appointed as part time Tube-well Operator after due selection vide letter dated 30.5.1987 and pursuant to this, he joined his duties w.e.f. 2.6.1987. Regularization rules known as Irrigation Department Part Time Operator Regularization Notification, 1996 was framed by the then State of U.P. in the light of the guidelines issued by the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 15.5.1997 contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. But the regularization order of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 21.9.2002 contained as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition and he was reverted to the post of part time Tube-well Operator. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the services of the petitioner were regularized by mistake and, therefore, the same has been cancelled by the impugned order. 2. Undisputedly, the petitioner is working on the said post since 1987. His services were regularized in May, 1997 and after a lapse of more than five years, his regularization order has been cancelled and he was reverted. Main ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was served on him before passing the impugned order. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University & Ors. reported in 1998 (6) J.T. 464, wherein it has been observed that where the provision provides that an appointment could be terminated at any time without notice if the same had been made contrary to the provisions of the Act, statutes, rules or regulations or in any irregular or unauthorized manner, the condition precedent for exercise of this power is that an appointment had been contrary to the Act, rules, statutes and regulations or otherwise. In order to arrive at a conclusion that an appointment is contrary to the provisions of the Act, statutes, rules or regulations, etc., a finding has to be recorded and unless such a finding is recorded, the termination cannot be made, but to arrive at such a conclusion necessarily an enquiry will have to be made as to whether such appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Act etc. If in a given case such exercise is absent, the condition precedent stands unfulfilled. To arrive at such a finding necessarily enquiry will have to be held and in holding such an enquiry, the person whose appointment is under enquiry will have to be issued a notice. If notice is not given to him, then it is like playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, that is, if the employee concerned whose rights are affected is not given notice of such a proceeding and a conclusion is drawn in his absence, such a conclusion would not be just, fair or reasonable. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh