IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SB) 201 of 2003 Badri Prasad Muyal …Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and others ….Respondents Present : Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Department of Social Welfare and vide order dated 25.12.2001 he was placed on consolidated salary of ` 3500 per month. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.4.2002 the petitioner was absorbed as Junior Clerk on pay scale of ` 3050-4590. This order of absorption of the petitioner was passed on 19.4.2002 by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Dehradun. Thereafter vide order dated 2.11.2002 the Additional Director of Social Welfare has picked only the petitioner from the earlier list of 12 candidates (i.e. order dated 19.4.2002 where the petitioner was one of the 12 candidates at serial no. 5) and now he will be given consolidated salary of ` 3500/- as he was being given by earlier order dated 25.12.2001. It is this order which the petitioner has challenged on two grounds. Firstly, by the said impugned order dated 2.11.2002 the Additional Director, Social Welfare Department cannot modify the order dated 19.4.2002 which is an order of higher authority i.e. the Director, Social Welfare Department. Second ground of challenge is that effectively the impugned order dated 2.11.2002 which 2 has been argued by Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate that in effect order dated 2.11.2002 reduces the petitioner in rank and this has been done without giving an opportunity of hearing to him and therefore it is in clear violation of article 311 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner is occupying the post. The State in its counter affidavit has justified its stand for passing the order dated 25.12.2001 by stating that earlier order dated 19.4.2002 was passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department due to mistake inasmuch as there was no post on which the petitioner could have been absorbed. He further contended that there was no requirement of any opportunity of hearing and notice to be given to the petitioner. This stand of the State is clearly unacceptable. The impugned order dated 2.11.2002 is in clear violation of principal of natural justice and fair play inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing or show cause was given to the petitioner while passing the impugned order dated 2.11.2002. Moreover, the impugned order modifying the earlier order, which was in favour of the petitioner, has been passed by subordinate authority to the earlier authority. This is also clearly illegal. The writ petition therefore succeeds. The order dated 2.11.2002 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.9.2011 Kuldeep