- (1.) The petitioner was a daily wager in the forest department. The services of the petitioner were regularized as a driver by order dated 27.05.2002. The order of regularization of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 17.2.2006. A prior order was passed by the respondents authorities on 4.2.2006. The order dated 4.2.2006, regularized the petitioner on the post of Ardali, by amending the earlier order dated 27.5.2002.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 4.2.2006 and 17.2.2006. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders in the instant writ petition.
(3.) Sri Y.S. Saxena, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the services of the petitioner were regularized, he became the holder on civil post. His appointment was substantive against a sanctioned vacancy. The order of cancellation of his regularization and the order of 4.2.2006, virtually amount to a reversion and change in the nature of his employment. The orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner had requisite qualification for appointment as a driver and the order of his regularization could not have been recalled.;