JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by and on behalf of Assistant Food and Civil Supplies Inspectors, whose appointments have been cancelled by order dated 21-1-1982. They seek a writ of certiorari for queshing the impugned order and a writ of mandamus for treating them as having been properly selected and appointed as Assistant Food and Civil Supplies Inspectors. ( 2. ) THE petitioners, in pursuance to an Advertisement (Document No. 1), applied for appointment as Assistant Food and Civil Supplies Inspectors and appeared in a written test. Since they qualified in the written test, they were called for an interview and after successfully competing in the interview, they were appointed as assistant Food and Civil Supplies Inspectors in the month of February, 1980. A specimen copy of the order appointing them is filed as Document No. 3. It is their allegation that after joining their services, they discharged their duties and obligations with honesty and without any complaint from any one and were due to complete their probationary period in the month of February, 1982. Instead of an order of confirmation, they surprisingly received the impugned order cancelling their appointments. They alleged that the decision to cancel their appointment is based on the sole ground that they were appointed during the period when Janata Government headed by Janata Party was in power. It is also their case that their appointments have been cancelled without assigning any reason and without holding any enquiry. The cancellation is, therefore, characterised as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The respondents have filed their return and have denied the aforesaid allegation. It is specifically denied that the cancellation was on the ground that the petitioners were appointed by the Janata Government. Though it is admitted that the petitioners were not given any reason or notice, it is submitted that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The case of the respondents is that the appointments of the petitioners were made in gross violation of recruitment rules by the committee which was not properly constituted. It is also submitted that the selection was not fair, as there was never any uniformity in the process of evaluation and even the marks allotted by the different members of the committee, were subsequently changed without any justification. It is also submitted that the selection was not fair, as there was never any uniformity in the process of evaluation and even the marks allotted by the different members of the committee, were subsequently changed without any justification. The entire selection, according to the respondents, was unfair and void ab initio, conferring no rights whatsoever on the petitioners. ( 3. ) THE learned Deputy Advocate-General has placed the entire record of the interview before this Court for its perusal. It is apparent that members of the selection committee were awarding their separate marks to each candidate interviewed by them. The sheet maintained by the members of the selection committee shows that several corrections, additions and changes have been made by the members in the list. After the selection, the members have prepared the final select list in which the names of the candidates have been arranged in order of merits, as disclosed by the marks obtained by them. The selection committee has prepared a separate list each for general category, Scheduled Caste category and Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The final select list is signed by the members of the selection committee and does not show any correction, amendment or interpolations. The persons have been appointed on the basis of these select lists in the same order in which their names appear in the lists. During the course of hearing, it was stated by the learned Deputy advocate-General that in the list of general category candidates, one Shri Gopal janghel and Shri Dinesh Kumar Shrivastava, whose names appear at Serial Nos. 6 and 36 of the select list, were not appointed, even though they were qualified for appointment. Similarly, in the select list of Scheduled Caste candidates, one Shri sukhilal Rane, whose name appears at Serial No. 20, has not been appointed. This person, however, is the last person in the list and by not appointing him, no illegality seems to have been committed. Though in the list of general category candidates, two persons who should have been appointed, have not been appointed, nothing whatsoever has been placed on record to show how this has happened. It is, however, admitted that the aforesaid two persons have neither represented nor have approached this Court for any relief. ( 4. Though in the list of general category candidates, two persons who should have been appointed, have not been appointed, nothing whatsoever has been placed on record to show how this has happened. It is, however, admitted that the aforesaid two persons have neither represented nor have approached this Court for any relief. ( 4. ) SINCE it is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed in the month of february 1980 on probation for a period of two years, and have worked continuously without any complaint whatsoever upto the date of impugned order, the impugned order can be set aside on the short ground that it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is ot disputed that Article 16 of the Constitution controls all appointments and guarantees equality before law to all persons in the matter of appointment. The equality guaranteed under this Article, in so far as persons appointed to the service, means the right to continue as long as their services are not lawfully terminated. The equality guaranteed under this Article, therefore, extends to affording protection against the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of termination of service. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P. K. More ( AIR 1962 SC 630 )considered the ambit and scope of the protection available and held that in case the petitioner establishes the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of termination of service, article 16 (1) of the Constitution would be attracted. This legal position remains settled by two subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in E. P. Rovabba vs. State of tamil Nadu ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ) and Government Branch Press vs. D. B. Biliappa ( AIR 1979 SC 429 ). After the decision jof the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of india ( AIR 1978 SC 597 ) it is no longer open to doubt that even it an administrative proceeding which involves civil consequence, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. This was a case where passport held by the petitioner was impounded without any notice and without any hearing. It was held that though there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. This was a case where passport held by the petitioner was impounded without any notice and without any hearing. It was held that though there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The Supreme court treated natural justice to be a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative section. The only question, therefore, is : whether in a case like the present one, the principle of natural justice applied ? It is not disputed that the appointments of the petitioners were made in accordance with M. P. Food and Civil Supply Services (Non-gazetted Recruitment rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), which do not make any provision for cancellation of appointments already made. These Rules, on the contrary, vest a legal right in a person whose name is included in the select list, to be appointed in the same order in which his name appears in the select list. Once a person has been appointed in terms of these Rules, termination of his employment would be governed by Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. A constitutional right vested in a person appointed after selection, cannot be taken away without any formality, as it is bound to have civil consequences on him. Principles of natural justice would, therefore, be attracted in such a case. The minimum that these principles would require from the respondents, is to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to represent against the proposed cancellation by disclosing them the reasons for the proposed action. This admittedly has not been done and, hence, the impugned order suffers from an -incurable illegality. This, by itself, is sufficient to allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned order reissuing a writ of certiorari. ( 5. ) THE judicial opinion in the Country appears to be overwhelmingly in support of the aforesaid view of this Court. In A. Manik Rao vs. Director D. M. R. Laboratory, hyderabad (1984 Lab. This, by itself, is sufficient to allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned order reissuing a writ of certiorari. ( 5. ) THE judicial opinion in the Country appears to be overwhelmingly in support of the aforesaid view of this Court. In A. Manik Rao vs. Director D. M. R. Laboratory, hyderabad (1984 Lab. I. C. 1606) the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the concellation of provisional selection of a person for appointment to a Government post, as principles of natural justice were not followed and the person concerned had not been given a fair opportunity and hearing to show cause why his selection should not be set aside. In Usha Rani vs. State of Haryana (1984 Lab. I. C. 1411) the Punjab high Court took almost the same view and ordered re-instatement of an ad hoc appointee whose appointment had been terminated without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing. According to the said High Court, there was absence of fair play and reasonableness in cancelling the appointment and, hence, Article 14 of the constitution was attracted. In Dr. Sudhir Chandra vs. Allahabad University (1983 Lab. I. C. 568), Allahabad High Court took the same view and held that even an invalid appointment has to be set aside after following the principles of natural justice. A Full bench of Patna High Court in Bijoy Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1983 Lab. LC. 1884) has taken the same view by holding that "where the right to preferential treatment in the matter of future appointment and the legitimate expectation of the employee in wiped off as a result of the order of termination, the rules of natural justice would apply. It would not be just or fair, in such circumstances, to terminate the services without hearing the person likely to be affected and allowing him a chance to persuade the authorities that in spite of the alleged illegality and irregularity, no one has really suffered. " Even the earlier view of this Court appears to be the same. In Hemant Jain vs. Board of Pre-Engineering (1983 M. P. W. N. Note No. 252) a Division Bench of this court took the view that no order affecting a person whould be passed in his absence. This was a case relating to admission in Engineering College and the petitioner was denied admission without following the principles of natural justice. In Hemant Jain vs. Board of Pre-Engineering (1983 M. P. W. N. Note No. 252) a Division Bench of this court took the view that no order affecting a person whould be passed in his absence. This was a case relating to admission in Engineering College and the petitioner was denied admission without following the principles of natural justice. This Court quashed the order and directed his admission by creating an extra seat. In Abid Mohd. Khan vs. State of M. P. (1983 M. P. W. N. Note No. 338) a Single Bench of this Court held that an order passed under F. R. 54 affects emoluments and service of a civil servant and cannot be passed without giving him an opportunity to show cause. The decision in Shambhudayal Jindal vs. L. I. C. (1984 M. P. L. J. Note No. 37) also takes the same view. It is, therefore, clear that principles of natural justice have become a part of our jurisprudence and are now contained in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They are required to be followed even in administrative matters having civil consequences on the person concerned. ( 6. ) THE respondents have, however, come-forward with a case that selection of the petitioners had not been done fairly and in accordance with the Rules. Though there is nothing in the return of the respondents to show any illegality committed by the respondent-Director, the learned Deputy Advocate General did not hesitate in stating that Shri V. K. Jajoriya, the then Director of Food and Civil Supplies, has himself tampered with the record and has, thereby, contributed to the unfairness. It was particularly brought to the notice of this Court that the said Shri Jajoriya has been instrumental in increasing the marks obtained by Shri D. K. Mishra at serial No. 112, shri Hamid Khan at Serial No. 67 and Shri Santosh Kumar Jain at serial No. 17. This fact is also stated in the statement filed with Annexure-AA-R-1. It was particularly brought to the notice of this Court that the said Shri Jajoriya has been instrumental in increasing the marks obtained by Shri D. K. Mishra at serial No. 112, shri Hamid Khan at Serial No. 67 and Shri Santosh Kumar Jain at serial No. 17. This fact is also stated in the statement filed with Annexure-AA-R-1. Similarly, serious allegations have been made against Shri J. P. Mathur, Deputy Director, Shri S. M. Kumar, Under Secretary, Shri D. R. Singh, Under Secretary and Mohammad Tahir ansari, Assistant Director of the Department, who constituted the selection committee for interviewing candidates, it was, however, conceded that no action whatsoever has been taken against any one of them for these illegalities and some of them have even been promoted. This Court is really shocked and surprised not only at the allegations made against these Officers, but also at the attitude displayed by the respondent-State in the matter. Instead of penalising the Officers responsible for the illegalities committed by them, they have passed the impugned order against poor employees without observing any formalities. The fairness demanded that the State should have also while passing the impugned order, initiated departmental action against the erring Officers. The impugned order, though defended on the ground of fairness, does not indicate the fair and impartial working of the respondent-State. A democratically elected Government should realise its responsibilities towards all its citizens and ensure that the equality clause is not utilized only against the poor but has to be utilized against persons of statues as well. The equality has to be translated into action by applying the same equally to all irrespective of their positions. ( 7. ) IN spite of it, the legal effect of defects pointed out in the selection process may be considered. The first defect pointed out is that the selection committee was required to be constituted by the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supply, Under secretary to the Government in Food and Civil Supply Department and the Assistant director of Food and Civil Supply under Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules, but neither of the three members of the committee made the selection, nor the same Under secretary attended all the meetings. It is true that Rule 12 read with Schedule IV of the recruitment Rules, provides that the Departmental Promotion Committee mentioned in the Schedule for purposes of promotion, shall also act as selection committee for making direct recruitment. The Schedule, however, does not provide for any departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Assistant Food and Civil Supplies inspectors, as these posts are required to be filled by direct recruitment. Under the circumstances, there is no Departmental Promotion Committee provided in Schedule iv for this category of post and, hence, it cannot be accepted that the selection committee interviewing the candidates, was constituted under the Schedule. In the absence of any committee mentioned in the Schedule, any committee appointed by the respondent-State for the purpose, would be competent to make the selection. Under the circumstances, the committee of the Deputy Director, Under Secretary and assistant Director, would be acceptable as the selection committee for the purpose. There is nothing in the Rules or in the order of appointment of the committee-indicating the necessary quorum required for holding the meeting. As such, if a member of the committee could not attend the meeting on any particular date, it cannot be said that the selection made on that date, was by unauthorised persons. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to hold that unless all members of a committee attended the meeting, the meeting so held would not be a meeting of the committee. Indeed, such a conclusion would make the work of such bodies almost impossible. The only other defect pointed out in the meeting is that there were two under Secretaries in the Department and both of them have attended the meeting at one time or the other. On two occasions at Ujjain and Bhopal both of them attended the meeting. It is not disputed that appointment of the Under Secretary as a member of the committee, was not by name and, hence, any one who was working as Under secretary would attend the meeting. As long as person attending the meeting was the under Secretary, it would not be possible to discover any illegality in the constitution of the committee. It is not disputed that appointment of the Under Secretary as a member of the committee, was not by name and, hence, any one who was working as Under secretary would attend the meeting. As long as person attending the meeting was the under Secretary, it would not be possible to discover any illegality in the constitution of the committee. Similarly, attendance by both the Under Secretaries would not, by itself, be sufficient to vitiate the selection unless it was shown that the selection process was substantially and vitally affected by the presence of both of them. There is, however, nothing on record to reach any such conclusion. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to discover any illegality in the selection process because of the constitution of the committee, though the members of the committee may be held guilty of their irregular presence or absence in or from the meeting of the selection committee. ( 8. ) THE other illegality in the selection process as pleaded in the return by the respondents, is that original sheets maintained by the individual member of the selection committee, show that several corrections have been made by over-writing and over-figuring marks given by the member concerned. This, however, does not appear to be unusual. The original sheet kept by individual member of the committee, is not the final select list. The sheet is usually kept by the individual member to record his personal opinion and valuation of the candidate. It is only after all candidates have been interviewed, that members discuss merits of each candidate to prepare an agreed select list. The agreed select list, in the instant case, has been prepared and does not bear any interpolation, over-writing or over-figuring. Final select list sufficiently indicates that changes made in the individual sheet of the member concerned, had been made before the preparation of final select list. Even if a member had changed marks given to a candidate by him while discussing his merits with other members and has, thereby, made changes in the sheet maintained by him, it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality. This, on the contrary, would indicate consideration of the candidate with an open mind. Even if a member had changed marks given to a candidate by him while discussing his merits with other members and has, thereby, made changes in the sheet maintained by him, it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality. This, on the contrary, would indicate consideration of the candidate with an open mind. As long as final select list is properly prepared and is signed by all members, no fault can be found in it because of over-writing or changes in the list maintained by individual members. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the selection of the petitioners was not vitiated either because of marks allotted to the petitioners, or because of constitution of the selection committee. ( 9. ) THE last illegality, though not stated in the return but submitted at the time of arguments, is that some persons who should have been appointed, were not appointed. It is true, that the respondents are required to make appointment of persons included in the select list in the same order in which their names appear in the list. It is also true that two persons in the select list of general category candidates were not appointed. There is, however, nothing on record to indicate why they were not appointed. Then, this, by itself, would not vitiate the appointment of the petitioner? and others. It may, at the most, entitle those two candidates to be appointed. They have, however, nof made any approach either to the Court or to the respondents for their appointment. If at any time those persons are to be appointed and if no posts are available, the question of terminating services of the last two persons appointed from the list, may arise. There is, however, a remote possibility of such an event taking place. Under the circumstances, this cannot be accepted as a ground for setting aside the appointment of the petitiners. ( 10. ) THOUGH this is sufficient to set aside the impugned order, and grant relief to the petitioners this Court is constrained to observe that the un- reasonable attitude displayed by the respondents, has not only wasted precious time of this Court, but has kept this writ petition pending unnecessarily. ( 10. ) THOUGH this is sufficient to set aside the impugned order, and grant relief to the petitioners this Court is constrained to observe that the un- reasonable attitude displayed by the respondents, has not only wasted precious time of this Court, but has kept this writ petition pending unnecessarily. On 5-7-1984, when this petition was being heard finally, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that fresh interviews were being held to consider whether the petitioners selection for appointment was well deserved. This Court was pleased to adjourn hearing and permit the respondents to hold the interview. By adopting this course, the Court felt that in case all petitioners were again selected, there would be no occasion to decide the controversy between the parties. The respondents were, therefore, directed to finish interviews within three months. On 9-11-1984, the period of three months was further extended by another three months to enable the respondents to complete interviews. Though more than nine months have since passed, the respondents have not even started interviews. It is clear from the record that the Court has been misled by the respondents while extending time for interviews and extended the period as, from the application, it appeared that all proceedings for holding fresh interviews have already been undertaken and some more time will be required to complete the interviews. Subsequent events sufficiently show that there was no honest effort made by the respondents to hold the interviews and nothing whatsoever was done in this regard. This Court can, however, do nothing but express its shock and surprise at the casualness with which these statements were made before it and hope that this would not be repeated in future. ( 11. ) THE petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Orders of termination of the petitioners employment are quashed and the respondents are directed by a writ of mandamus to treat the petitioners as having been properly selected and appointed on the post entitling them to all benefits-including the benefit of confirmation. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this petition. Counsels fee Rs. 500/-, if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed.