I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The petitioner, who is a J. B. T. teacher, impugns the order of the Deputy District Primary Education Officer, Gurdaspur, dated June 16, 1978 (Annexure P. 4) vide which the selection grade granted to her vide order dated April 28, 1978 (Annexure P. 3) was cancelled. The primary challenge to this order is on t e ground that the same is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice or hearing was afforded to her before the cancellation of the earlier order in her favour. Though in the first written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 it was pleaded that the order Annexure P. 3 was passed by an incompetent authority and was thus nonest or void order conferring no rights on the petitioner, yet in the latter written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, i.e. the Deputy District Education Officer, which officer had passed the order Annexure P. 3, it is pleaded in paragraph 8 that "the petitioner was awarded the selection grade of Rs. 120/175 provisionally which could be withdrawn at any time". This stand of this respondent can obviously not be sustained. By now it is well laid down that before an order to the prejudice of a civil servant can be passed, he/she has to be afforded a due opportunity of hearing to contest the same. That not having been done, I see no option but to quash the order Annexure P. 4 so far as it relates to the petitioner.
(2.) In the light of the above noted conclusion of mine I direct the respondent authorities to afford to the petitioner due hearing. It is, however, made clear that the respondent authorities are not debarred from considering the question of withdrawal of the selection grade from the petitioner in accordance with law. I pass no order as to costs. Order accordingly.;