JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat 1. The petitioners who are 19 in number are said to have been appointed on Class IV post on the recommendation of a selection committee on 31-12-88. The petitioners are said to have undergone medical examination and obtained fitness certificate and thereafter, joined on their respective posts at the District Training Centre Homeguards at Haldwani. 2. By a Government order the State government established District Training Centres for Homeguards in different districts of State including district Nainital. A centre was to be established at Haldwani for the district Nainital. 19 posts of class IV category were sanctioned for the Centre. That is reflected by order dated 21-11-88 Applications were invited for filling up the posts. The petitioners have applied and they came to be selected and appointed. On 27-1-89 the respondents are said to have terminated the services of the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the said order through the medium of the writ petition. 3. It is avered that the impugned order of termination of petitioners' services is against the principle of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the petitioners of being heard before they were terminated from the service. The impugued order merely states that the petitioners services were no more required. The petitioners say that after having been appointed against clear vacancy they could not be terminated from service. There posts are still vacant and continue. The respondents want to fill up the posts by making fresh appointment on the said posts. The petitioners have stated that on the ground of favourtism some other persons are being selected and appointed on the posts, otherwise there was no need to make fresh appointment. 4. In their counter respondents have denied the assertion of the petitioners stated by them in the writ petition. In paragraph 11 of the counter- affidavit the respondents have stated as under ;- "That the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition are incorrect and not admitted and in reply the facts already stated in reply to paragraph 7 of the writ petition may be perused. The appointments of the petitioners were illegal and invalid from the very beginning in as much as the Selection Committee which made selection was illegal and not constituted in accordance with the Rules and it was comprised of only three members and no member of Scheduled Caste attended the meeting. The appointments of the petitioners were illegal and invalid from the very beginning in as much as the Selection Committee which made selection was illegal and not constituted in accordance with the Rules and it was comprised of only three members and no member of Scheduled Caste attended the meeting. In case of Rameshwar Singh, petitioner No. 12, it may be mentioned here that he did not submit the required medical certificate. As such his appointment could not have been made in absence of proper certificate. Thus the entire procedure of selection of the petitioners giving appointment was illegal and arbitrary and against the Rules and relevants orders pertaining to the selection." On the basis of this assertion learned counsel for the petitioners stated that it is not a case of termination simplicter. The petitioners' appointment was found invalid and illegal; constitution of selection committee was also found invalid, therefore, it was necessary for the respondents to afford an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 5. The appointment order of the petitioners indicates that their appointment was temporary and they could be terminated from service any time without notice and the termination orders also do not give any reason about their termination. It is stated that services of the petitioners are not required now, therefore, their temporary appointment are terminated and they shall be given one month's pay in lieu of notice. But the termination of the petitioners is not without reason. Respondents have given reason in their counter-affidavit and explained the cause for terminating the services of the petitioners. They have challenged the very selection and appointment of the petitioners. The posts are still vacant. It is not the case of the respondents that the posts are abolished. So, the termination order is not simplicitor, but is explained by the respondents in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit which makes the termination order of the petitioners punitive. Once the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioners' selection and appointment was not valid, it was necessary for them to hear the petitioners in the matter of their selection and appointment. The petitioners were entitled to know the defects which they had incurred, according to the respondents, in seeking selection to the class IV posts. Once the respondents were of the opinion that the petitioners' selection and appointment was not valid, it was necessary for them to hear the petitioners in the matter of their selection and appointment. The petitioners were entitled to know the defects which they had incurred, according to the respondents, in seeking selection to the class IV posts. They were also required to be told that selection committee which had selected them was not duly constituted as asserted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The termination of the petitioners from service, therefore, cannot be sustained as it cannot be treated as termination simplicitor. The termination of the petitioners services was ordered because their selection and appointment was found invalid and illegal. Contents of paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit would entitled the petitioners to get a right of hearing before their services are terminated. 6. After giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners if it is found that appointment and selection of the petitioners was illegal and invalid as asserted by the respondents, and if it is found that their selection was made by a selection committee which was not validly constituted, respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action about removal of the petitioners, but that has to be done after affording an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. In the present case respondents have violated the principle of natural justice. They have positively asserted in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit that selection and appointment of the petitioner was illegal and invalid. That assertion would negate the contentions of the respondents to the effect that the petitioners services were no longer required as indicated in the termination order. Therefore, the whole process of the termination of the petitioners services stand vitiated. There are other points raised in the pleadings of the parties which need not be discussed elaborately because the writ petition can be disposed of only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice in view of positive assertion of the respondents in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, by a writ of certiorari, the orders of termination passed against the petitioners, impugned in the writ petition are quashed. It is directed that they be taken back in the service and the said order be treated as non-est. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, by a writ of certiorari, the orders of termination passed against the petitioners, impugned in the writ petition are quashed. It is directed that they be taken back in the service and the said order be treated as non-est. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to enquire into the validity or otherwise of the petitioners' appointment and to enquire into the validity of the constitution of the selection committee. lt fresh process for termination of the petitioners' services are initiated on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents shall afford an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard and grant them a right on hearing so as to satisfy the requirement of principle of natural justice. 8. There will be no orders as to costs.