J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) Shiva Raj Singh Rao and Suresh Chand Gupta petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed Sanitary Inspectors in the Municipal Committee, Faridabad, on April 2, 1969 and March 4, 1968, respectively. The Chief Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration, confirmed Shiva Raj Singh Rao petitioner No. 1 as Sanitary Inspector with effect from June 1, 1970, vide order dated July 6, 1970, (P. 3). Suresh Chand Gupta petitioner No. 2 was similarly confirmed with effect from April 1, 1970, vide order dated April 16, 1970, (P. 4). The Chief Administrator terminated the services of the petitioners vide order dated July 5, 1975, (P. 5), on the ground that the qualification (six months' diploma of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay) held by them is not recognised by Haryana Government, and as such they do not hold the requisite qualification laid down in the Haryana Government rules. The petitioners made representations against the order terminating their services which were rejected vide orders dated May 18,1976, (P.6) and Nov. 20, 1975, (P.7). The petitioners have assailed the orders P. 5 tO.P.7 in the present writ.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were confirmed Sanitary Inspectors in Faridabad Complex Administration on July 5, 1975, when their services were terminated by the impugned order P. 5 without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The order P. 5 is, therefore, liable to be set aside. For the same reason the orders P.6 and P.7 rejecting the representations of the petitioners against the order P. 5 cannot be sustained. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners must prevail.
(3.) It is not disputed that the petitioners were confirmed Sanitary Inspectors in Faridabad Complex Administration on July 5,1975. It is also admitted that they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing when their services were terminated vide the impugned order dated July 5, 1975, (P.5). The Chief Administrator who might otherwise be competent to terminate the services of the petitioners had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order P.5 without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The order P.5 having been passed without hearing the petitioners is non est. The petitioners did file representations against the order P.5 which were rejected vide orders P.6 and P.7. In view' of the fact that the order P.5 was non est, the impugned orders P.6 and P.7 cannot be sustained.;