IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 55 of 2011 Ramesh Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.S. Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate present for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) in “Sri Badrish Kirti Sanskrit Vidyapeeth”, Dimmar (Simli), District Chamoli. The appointment order was passed on 3.9.2009. Subsequently, after the petitioner worked for more than a year, an order was passed by the Director of Education on 30.12.2010 stating that the post which had actually to be advertised was the post of Assistant Lecturers and not of Assistant Teachers which were advertised on which the petitioner was appointed. Therefore, he directed the subordinate authorities to cancel the order of appointment of the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 30.12.2010, an order was passed by the Manager of Management Committee, “Sri Badrish Kirti Sanskrit Vidyapeeth”, Dimmar (Simli), District Chamoli cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. It is these two orders dated 30.12.2010 and 15.1.2011 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) which are under challenge. 2 The case of the petitioner is that there are two different posts having two different qualifications – (a) Assistant Lecturer and (b) Assistant Teacher. The Rules which are applicable for appointment of Teacher in Sanskrit School and annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit are called “Uttarakhand Sanskrit University Regulations, 2007”. Regulation no. 4.1 and 4.2 of the said Regulations classify various posts which are of Principle, Lecturer, Assistant Lecturer as well as Principle, Lecturer and Assistant Teacher. The claim of the petitioner is that the advertisement was for the post of Assistant Teachers for which he was fully qualified. There was post in the institute for Assistant Teacher and he was appointed by a duly constituted selection committee and the appointment order has been cancelled unceremoniously without affording an opportunity of hearing to him which is bad in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the impugned orders have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 school Sri Pankaj Purohit states that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated but his appointment order has been cancelled and therefore no opportunity of hearing was liable to be given inasmuch as there was no post of Assistant Teacher in the school. Whether the impugned order is in the nature of terminating services of the petitioner or it is only cancelling the order of appointment, the effect on the petitioner is same which is that his services have come to an end. It is a settled principle of law that since the impugned orders involve civil consequences an opportunity of hearing was mandatory. Since this has not been done, impugned orders dated 30.12.2010 and 15.1.2011 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) are liable to be quashed and are presently being quashed. The respondents though are at liberty to take any action in accordance with law but only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3 It is further directed that before taking any action de novo against the petitioner, the petitioner will first be reinstated in service and will be paid all his back wages which have been accrued to him till the date of reinstatement and only thereafter any proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.5.2011 Avneet