AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The services of the two petitioners herein were regularized by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 13/10/2008 (Annexure PÂ8) on the post of 'Data
Entry Operator', but all of a sudden, by impugned order dated 07/01/2010 (Annexure PÂ1) the order of regularization has been revoked/annulled
against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners.
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that services of the petitioners have been regularized on the post of
'Data Entry Operator' by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 13/10/2008, but it has been revoked/annulled by the order impugned dated 07/01/2010
without affording minimum opportunity of hearing to them which is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned order deserves
to be set aside.
Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Additional  Advocate General, would submit that petitioners' regularization order was passed contrary to
the statutory rules applicable therein, therefore, it has rightly been revoked by the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the record carefully.
It is not in dispute that petitioners' services were regularized on the post of 'Data Entry Operator' on 13/10/2008 and it is also not in dispute that the
order of regularization has been revoked/annulled by impugned order dated 07/01/2010 without giving an opportunity of hearing to them which is
absolutely in violation of principles of natural justice. Once the order of regularization was passed, it could not have been revoked/annulled without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As such, the impugned order dated 07/01/2010 (Annexure PÂ1) is hereby set aside. However,
respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinÂabove. No cost(s).