I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) National College. Sirsa, of which the petitioner was the Principal, was taken over by the State Government and the requisite sanction in this regard was granted by the Governor of Haryana vide communication dated Nov. 21, 1978, (Annexure R. 1). One of the important conditions of this sanction was that "Such members of the staff of this College as are considered suitable for absorption in Government service by the Haryana Pubic Service Commission/Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board shall he treated as now entrants." Further, it was also laid down in this communication that "The staff, subject to their suitability may be appointed temporarily for a period of six months. Their absorption on regular basis shall, however, be subject to t.h; condition laid down in sub para 2(ii) above "As a result of this taking over, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the College vide the State Government order dated Jan. 19, 1979, (Annexure P. 1). Later, his services were terminated vide the impugned order dated June 12. 1980, (Annexure P. 2) which reads as follows:- "The services of Shri R C. Dhingra, who was appointed as Principal on purely ad hoc basis vide Harvana Government No. l/l-79Edu. I (I), dated the 19th Jan., 1979, are hereby terminated with immediate effect. He impugns this order, besides being punitive and mala fide, as violative of principles of natural justice also. His plea in this regard is that when his case for regularisation was referred to Haryana Public Service Commission in pursuance of the above-noted condition of taking over (part of Annexure R. 1.). the Commission granted its approval though initially for a period of six months and lator upto June 21, 1980, yet before the Commission could reconsider the case of the petitioner, his services were terminated vide Annexure P. 2 on June 12, 198.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel at some length, I find that without going into the rest of the merits of the case, as argued by his Senior Advocate Mr. Agnihotri, he deserves to succeed on the later mentioned challenge i.e. the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. In order to sustain his plea that in such matters where the services of an incumbent have been taken over along with the institution i.e. National College in the instant case, and his regularisation in Government service is subject to consideration by the State Government or the Public Service Commission, before his case is found to be not fit or unsuitable for regularisation in Government service, he has to made aware of the materials which weighs against such non-regularisation. For this stand of his, the learned counsel relies on Mazharul Izlam Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1979 (3) SLR 297. where in somewhat similar circumstances their Lordships have ruled as under:- "It was observed in that case that it is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must taken which will affect the rights of any person without first giving him an opportunity of putting forward his case The main requirements of a fair hearing, as pointed out by this Court earlier, are, (i) A person must know the case that he is to meet; and (ii) He must have an adequate opportunity of meeting that case. These rules of natural justice, however, operate in voids of a statute. Their application can be expressly or implicitly excluded by the Legislature. But, such is not the case here."
(3.) That too was a case whether the petitioner who had initially been appointed as a Senitory Inspector by the Municipal Board of Moradabad had claimed that he stood finally absorbed in the Centralised Palika Service under rule 6(2) (iii) of the U.P. Palika (Centralised Services Rules, 1966 and termination of his services under the said Rules without affording an opportunity of putting forward his case was bad. Their Lordships; while upholding the said contention, ruled as indicated above. In the instant case, it is the conceded position that the Haryana Public Service Commission had granted its approval to the absorption of the petitioner in Government Service at least till June 21, 1980 though the learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the Commission could not grant any such piece-meal approval, yet I do not feel the necessity of going into that aspect of the matter and in view of that the termination of bis services on June 12, 1980, and that too without affording an opportunity of hearing o him is obviously unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. I order accordingly, but with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.;