THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26160 OF 2007 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena kumari) Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6873/2006 in setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 30.10.2006, the Government filed the present writ petition. 3. From the material on record, the admitted facts are that the respondent herein was initially appointed as Watchman in the defunct A. P. State Construction Corporation Limited in the year 1977 and subsequently after prolonged legal battle, before the Labour Court and before the High Court and the Apex Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 13.2.1990 accommodating such of the incumbents who were in the service of the said Corporation by creating supernumerary posts and accordingly based on the said G.O. the respondent was continuing in service and subsequently, based on the proposals sent by the 4th writ petitioner – Department the services of the respondent were regularized by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 26.8.2006. But the said G.O. was cancelled by issuing a subsequent G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 30.10.2006 and challenging the same, the respondent filed the O.A. 4. It is to be noticed that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 26.8.2006 the services of the respondent were regularized and hence a vested right is created. When such a right is sought to be taken away, the principles of natural justice have to be complied with. In the present case, the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 30.10.2006 canceling the earlier G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 26.8.2006 was issued without issuing any notice to the respondent. As the principles of natural justice were blatantly violated, the Tribal below has rightly set aside the G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 30.10.2006. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. 6. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ T.MEENA KUMARI,J ---------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:17.03.2008 AVS