- (1.) HEARD Sri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioners and Standing Coun sel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6-9-2000 issued by respondent no. 3. Briefly stated the petitioners were appointed on daily wages on the post of Beldar in Public Works Depart ment and they have been working since 1985. The petitioners were regularized against the sanctioned posts of Beldars. The petitioners have submitted that on 6-9-2000, the Executive Engineer in pursuance of letter of the Chief Engi neer dated 10-4-2000 cancelled the ap pointment of the petitioners. The con tention of the petitioners is that the or der dated 6-9-2000 is void and illegal. The petitioners have not been given op portunity of hearing before passing or der of cancellation of their appointments. Once order of regularization was passed in favour of the petitioners it was necessary that the person who is affected should have been heard before cancelling, the same. According to the petitioners can celling of the order will amount to civil consequences and as such opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioners before the impugned order is passed.
(3.) STATE of Uttaranchal has filed a counter affidavit and has stated that the Chief Engineer, Grade-1, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Almora has informed vide its letter dated 10-4-2000 has reduced the sanctioned posts. As the appointments of the petitioners were temporary, therefore, the respondents have right to cancel the said appointment. In the case of the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Champawat, respondent no. 3 is the appointing authority, constituted a Se lection Committee. The Selection Com mittee after examining the record of the candidates prepared a list on the basis of seniority and submitted the same to the appointing authority for appoint ment. The respondents have not dis puted the process of selection and the appointing authority thereafter duly is sued appointment letters to the petition ers and other candidates. No illegality or irregularity has been alleged in the process of appointment. Thus the ap pointment of the petitioners were per fectly justified and was in accordance with rules.;