( 1 ) THE petitioner, Mrs. E. S. M. Castelino, is an allottee from the erstwhile state of Madras to the new State of karnataka with effect from 1-11-1956 on the Reorganisation of States. Since then, she has been serving as a Nurse in the cadre of Nursing Staff. ( 2 ) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the issues raised in this writ petiton it is necessary, briefly to state that by an order dated 6th November, 1975, the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka accorded sanction to /the scheme of reorganisation of Schools of Nursing which was on parity with the standard staffing pattern suggested by the indian Nursing Council. It is seen from the scheme set out in the preamble to the order that the seven schools of Nursing in the State should each have one Principal and Tutors varying from four to six. ( 3 ) IT is also relevant to state that it is not disputed by the State government that in the Department of Health and Family Planning of the Govt of karnataka, there is only a single Cadre of Nursing Staff though for convenience at a point of time, a Gradation List was indeed prepared showing the members of the Cadre as belonging to the Nursing Staff and Nursing Tutors. This Gradation List was prepared by the Head of the Department, namely, the Director of Health and Medical services in Karnataka. ( 4 ) SHRI Annadanayya Puranik, learned High Court Government advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, fairly conceded that the true legal position is that the cadre remains one and that there has been finalised and published an Inter-State Seniority list of the Nursing Staff in the State of Karnataka by a notification dated 10-2-1976. That List has not been challenged by any of the persons who are affected or who claimed to be affected by that List. Among the eight hospitals at which the Nursing training Schools had to be located in accordance with the order of the government dated 6th November, 1975, Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore, is one. It is also to be noticed that earlier Victoria hospital, Bangalore, had the Nursing training School and what was accomplished by the order of 6th november, 1975, was the upgrading of the remaining seven Hospitals to the level of Nursing Training School of the victoria Hospital, Bangalore. It is also to be noticed that earlier Victoria hospital, Bangalore, had the Nursing training School and what was accomplished by the order of 6th november, 1975, was the upgrading of the remaining seven Hospitals to the level of Nursing Training School of the victoria Hospital, Bangalore. It is also stated by the learned Government advocate that though the order provided for upgrading the various nursing Schools in the State, sanctioning Tutors and Principals as far back as in November, 1975, no Cadre and recruitment Rules have been framed prescribing the mode of recruitment to the cadre of Tutors or the Principals of the said Nursing Training schools. ( 5 ) THE petitioner herein came to be posted and placed in independent charge of the post of Principal, School of Nursing, Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore, relieving Mukta nadakattin (3rd respondent herein) who was holding the post of principal, with immediate effect and until further orders. This notification came to be issued apparently on the prolonged and persisting representations of the petitioner that she was the senior-most in the Cadre of Nursing Staff according to the Inter-State Seniority list and therefore she was entitled to that post. This claim is supported by the contents of the letter of the commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department of the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka dated 17-7-1979 addressed to the director of Health and Family Welfare services, Bangalore, (2nd Respondent herein ). The petitioner attempted to take charge of the posting given to her as per notification dated 12th July, 1979, but was totally frustrated on account of the refusal of the Superintendent, Bowring and Lady curzon Hospital, Bangalore to allow her to take charge as Principal in independent charge of the School of nursing at that Hospital. In those circumstances, she approached this court in W. P. No. 13919/1979 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent therein namely, the Superintendent, Bowring and lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, to give effect to the notification of the government of 12th July, 1979. Notice had been ordered in that writ petition as to why rule nisi should not be issued. Notice had been ordered in that writ petition as to why rule nisi should not be issued. While that writ petition was pending in this Court, the 1st respondent issued a fresh notification dated 19-9-1979 nearly three months after the 1st notification of 12th July 1979, by which the earlier notification of 12th July, 1979, was rescinded. Aggrieved by the latter notification, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the second notification with a prayer that this Court may quash the said notification as the same is arbitrary and violative of petitioner's right under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. On the filing of the writ petition, rule nisi was issued by my learned brother bopanna, J. during the Dassara vacation. He also stayed the operation of the latter notification. Thereafter, this writ petition was required to be posted for hearing along with the earlier writ petition filed by her. In the meanwhile, one Mrs. A, Devanayagie filed W. P. No. 14171/1979 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to respondent State of Karnataka and others therein to consider her case for promotion to the post of Principal, School of Nursing, bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, bangalore, as she was senior to the petitioner in this writ petition and others in the Cadre of Nursing Tutors. Even that writ petition was clubbed with this writ petition to be heard together. ( 6 ) IN spite of several chances given, to the State, no return has been filed by it in any one of these three writ petitions. However, respondent-3 in this writ petition, has filed her stater ment of objections which requires only to be noticed and then brushed-aside, as not having any bearing on the issues raised in this writ petition. In the said statement of objections, she has asserted that she was appointed as incharge Principal of the Nursing school at Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital Bangalore, that she has more than the prescribed qualifications to hold that pest which are superior to that of the petitioner and that she has had special training of Montreal in canada in the matter of Nursing and being eminently better suited, the order of rescinding made on 19th september, 1979, relating to the petitioner herein was, therefore, justifiable. As I have earlier stated, this requires to be noticed only to be brushed aside because on the day the first notification was issued on 12th July 1979 posting the petitioner as the Principal to be in independent charge of the Nursing School, Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, another notification was issued transferring the 3rd respondent herein as senior Nursing Officer, Health and family Planning Training Centre, bangalore, with immediate effect and until further orders. She has not challenged, that order made by the government transferring her from the nursing School, Bowring and Lady curzon Hospital, Eangalore. In fact, it is relevant to notice that she has continued in that post only by virtue of the order made by me in W- P. No. 13919/1979 on 24-10-1979 as an interim measure. In this Writ Petition, the lis really exists between the 1st respondent State of Karnataka and the petitioner and none else. Though the petitioner in W. P. No. 14171/1979 has impleaded herself as one of the respondents in these proceedings, there being no order in her favour made by the Government posting her as Principal on any basis to any of the nursing Training Schools the statement of objections filed by her is also bound to be ignored in so far as this writ petition is concerned, for the same reason that had been ascribed for rejecting the statement of objections filed by the 3rd respondent. ( 7 ) FROM the above facts, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order at ext-M dated 19-9-1979 rescinding the earlier order of 12th July, 1979 was legal, proper and not arbitrary. ( 8 ) THOUGH no return has been filed by the State, Shri Annadanayya puranik, learned High Court Government advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, has made available the records of the 1st respondent relating to the matter in issue. ( 9 ) ON a perusal of the records, it is seen that in spite of the letter of the commissioner and Secretary to the government for Health and Family planning and Welfare Department dated 17-7-1979, the impugned order came to be passed only on account of the objections raised by the Superintendent, Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore. ( 9 ) ON a perusal of the records, it is seen that in spite of the letter of the commissioner and Secretary to the government for Health and Family planning and Welfare Department dated 17-7-1979, the impugned order came to be passed only on account of the objections raised by the Superintendent, Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore. It suffices to state, such objection was raised on the ground that in his opinion the petitioner was not suitable to hold independent charge of the Training School as her record was not good. In the absence of Cadre and Recruitment rules to fill-up the post of the principals and Tutors of the Nursing training Schools, it is open to the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka to exercise its executive power under art, 162 of the Constitution and fill up those posts either on permanent basis or on adhoc basis till the Cadre and recruitment Rules are framed in that behalf. It must be presumed that after 1975 or even before, it is only in exercise of that executive power that the posts of principals and Tutors were filled up by executive orders. If the power to make an order of the kind made on 12th July 1979, is conceded to the State, it necessarily follows the same order can be rescinded in like manner by the State Government in exercise of its Executive power. But such latter exercise of power should be genuine exercise of power and in public interest. But, as pointed out by me earlier, the records do disclose that while the first order of posting the petitioner as Principal incharge was made in public interest, the second order has been made behind her back on an allegation made against her. This is not only arbitrary but opposed to rules of natural justice. Power of the State to act under Art. 162 of the constitution even if it is construed as strictly administrative order, if it has indirectly affected the rights of the petitioner and also it casts a stigma on her without her being made known as to how she is unsuitable or what part of her career consists the period of bad record, the petitioner has a right to be heard. The post in question being neither promotional post nor one meant for direct recruits, in the absence of Cadre and Recruitment rules in that behalf,. The post in question being neither promotional post nor one meant for direct recruits, in the absence of Cadre and Recruitment rules in that behalf,. the order made on 12th July, 1979, must be construed as one conferring on the petitioner a temporary right, if not a permanent right to that post. If she were to be deprived of that temporary right, in my view, she ought to have been heard before the same was cancelled on what can be termed broadly a,s adverse report from her superiors. Viewed thus, it is difficut to sustain the order made on 19-9-1979 and therefore this Court should and need not hesitate, in the interests of justice to quash that order. Accordingly, a writ of Certiorari will issue quashing the impugned order at ext-M. Liberty, however, is reserved to the State Government to bring home any charges against the petitioner, if she is guilty of any misconduct in her service which disentitles her to hold that post provided a due and proper enquiry is held in that behalf. This observation is made and liberty reserved only because a Senior Officer of the Department has gone on record regarding her unsuitability to hold the post of principal even on incharge basis. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with this case, it is necessary to notice that Government advocate at an earlier stage of the proceedings before this Court made a proposition, to give an equivalent post to the petitioner which she might accept. That offer was turned down by the petitioner as she was offered the post of a Tutor carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scalei of the principal. This Court need not state anything more regarding that memo. ( 11 ) IT is only to be hoped that the Govt. will act in fairness even while passing an administrative order as held by the supreme Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC. 597 . ( 12 ) IN the view I have taken in W. P. No. 14732/1979. I have no choice but to issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent in W. P. 13919/1979 to give effect to the Government Notification dated 12th July, 1979, as soon as a copy of this order is communicated to him. 597 . ( 12 ) IN the view I have taken in W. P. No. 14732/1979. I have no choice but to issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent in W. P. 13919/1979 to give effect to the Government Notification dated 12th July, 1979, as soon as a copy of this order is communicated to him. The petitioner will also be entitled to all the cosequential benefits such as pay and allowance, as if she had assumed charge on 12-7-1979. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .