ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was directed to be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 25549 of 2002. For the sake of convenience the writ petitions are being taken up chronologically. The petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 20229 of 2000 which was finally disposed off by this Court vide its order dated 2 -5 -2000 with the following directions: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. With regard to his grievance the petitioner has already made a representation dated 16 -12 -1999, Annexure -4 to the writ petition, before respondent. This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction the representation filed by the petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav was disposed off by impugned order dated 8 -8 -2000 and 31 -5 -2001, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures 6 and 12, passed in the present writ petition. Petitioner, Ram Singh Yadav filed one more Writ Petition No. 36179 of 2000 which was allowed by this Court on 18 - 4 -2001 with the following directions Heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as Industrial Supervisor in Hathkargha Evam Vastroudhyog, U.P. by the order dated 4 -8 -2000 which order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 8 -8 -2000 on the ground that the appointment was defective (Trutipurna). The defect has not been depicted in the order impugned herein. The reason which led to passing of the impugned order was referred to be recorded in separate office memorandum dated 8 -8 -2000 referred to in the impugned order but the same has not been brought on record. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of showing cause nor was he served the said office memorandum dated 8 -8 -2000, which pointed out defects on the basis of which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. In Basudev Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and others, JT 1998 (6) SC 464, it has been held that the question whether the appointment was illegal or defective should be decided without affording any opportunity of showing cause. In my opinion, the order impugned herein is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8 -8 -2000 is quashed without prejudice to the right of the competent authority to pass such order as it may deem fit and proper after affording an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.;