JUDGMENT M. L. Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 15- 4-1989, contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 4 and he prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner by giving effect to the said order. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as clerk of II grade in the pay scale of Rs. 185-280 in the [Basic Shiksha Parishad, Gopeshwar, district Chamoli. Two clerks of I grade were promoted and posted at Allahabad as a consequence of which the petitioner seems to have been promoted to the post of I grade clerk in the revised pay scale of Rs. 430- 685 by the order dated 19-11-1981 passed by the respondent No. 2. By virtue of the Government Order dated 7-8-1986 certain posts of Accountants In the office of the respondent No, 3 in (he pay scale of Rs. 470-735 were created and selection to those posts was to be made from the staff already working in the Parishad, who were drawing; the pay in the scale of Rs. 430 685. There was a further direction that when the post was vacated by a selected candidate, the post shall come to an end from the date it falls vacant Seniority and merit was method of selection. The petitioner was appointed on 24-9-1986 on the basis of the report of the selection committee and was appointed as Assistant Accountant in the pay-scale of Rs 470-735. The petitioner's, appointment was approved by the respondent No. 2 on the said post and his services were confirmed the petitioner is said to have resigned from the post held by him before this selection. With effect from 1986 the petitioner continues to work as Assistant Accountant. But all of a sudden a communication was addressed by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No 3 that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular on the post of Assistant Accountant and it was directed that the petitioner be removed from service. His promotion on the post of clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 430-685 was held to be temporary the petitioner challenges this order in this writ petition. His promotion on the post of clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 430-685 was held to be temporary the petitioner challenges this order in this writ petition. The petitioner's case is that having been promoted on the recommendations of the selection committee and approved by the respondent No 2 his services could not be terminated by the directions of the respondents, contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition He has resigned from his original post Now he cannot be thrown out from the said post. The post of Assistant Accountant has not been abolished. The respondents' contention about the petitioner's appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 430-683 being bad, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. They have stated that the petitioner's appointment as clerk in the grade of 430-685 was irregular and he could not be selected as Assistant Accountant by the Selection Committee. The petitioner's termination from service is justified and it is stated that he could nt be selected. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the standing counsel. The petitioner was appointed as clerk and then promoted to the post of clerk grade I in the revised pay scale and the order dated 19-11-1981 by which the petitioner was given the grade of Rs. 430-685 is not denied in the counter affidavit. He is allowed to work in this grade for about 5 years, Thereafter he was selected to the post of Assistant Accountant and he is said to have resigned from the past which he held before his selection. As a consequence of his resignation from the post which he held before his selection he is not entitled to hold that post again. His appointment as Assistant Accountant is cancelled because his appointment in the grade of Rs. 430-685 is found now irregular after eight years when the impugned order is issued. The petitioner's appointment is found to be irregular by the respondents and they have given some: reasons in the impugned order about their contention that the appointment of the petitioner initially was irregular and he could not be given the grade of Rs. 430-685. This was the matter which could be considered at the time of the petitioner selection as Assistant Accountant. 430-685. This was the matter which could be considered at the time of the petitioner selection as Assistant Accountant. This was not considered and he was allowed to seek consideration and eventually selected for the post of Assistant Accountant by a duly constituted selection committee The termination of his services could be ordered only in accordance with the rules and the procedure established by law. He was to be heard and given a notice about any defect in his selection as Assistant Accountant, which was discovered by the respondents in 1989. The petitioner was entitled to be heard before he could be removed from the post. 5. The respondent's case is also that the petitioner was not appointed by an incompetent person but by a competent person initially and then his selection was made by a competent selection committee. There was no defect of jurisdiction in the respondents of which the petitioner had taken any advantage in seeking appointment initially and subsequently in getting selected to the post of Assistant Accountant The petitioner's initial appointment in the grade of Rs. 430-685 is found irregular, therefore, the respondents have decided to remove him from service as he was irregularly selected against the post initially. The respondents are obliged to hear the petitioner before they could take any action 6. In Shrawan Kumar Jha v. Stale of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 309 , it was held that before cancelling the appointment on the ground that the appointing authority had no authority to appoint the employees, an opportunity of hearing must he given to the employee against whom action of cancellation of appointment is proposed 175 persons were appointed as Assistant Teachers by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Bihar) in May, 1988. After joining on the post the Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled their appointment on 2-11-1988 on the ground that the Superintendent of Education had no authority to make those appointments. In the facts and circumstances of that case the Supreme Court said that no order of termination could be passed without complying with the rules of natural Justice. The impugned orders of cancelation of their services were set aside on that short ground. In this case also the petitioner has not been given the right of hearing before his services were terminated. The termination of his services, therefore is against the service rules and violative of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders of cancelation of their services were set aside on that short ground. In this case also the petitioner has not been given the right of hearing before his services were terminated. The termination of his services, therefore is against the service rules and violative of the principles of natural justice. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the order dated 15-4-1989 impugned in this writ petition, by which the petitioner's services have been terminated, is declared as unconstitutional and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service and shall be paid his emoluments as admissible to him under law. Petition allowed.