Judgment B.L.Yadav, J. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in respect of the provision of law under which these Appeals have been filed. 2. These, analogous Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the same judgment dated 15.2.1995 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court. The Judgment was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1192/93 (R) Ram Pukar Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. and C.W.J.C. No. 1193/93 (R) Sita Ram Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. These appeals involve similar moot questions, including as to whether principles of natural justice have been violated, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The petitioners were initially appointed as the Silt Analyst and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Research Officers by an order of the Chief Engineer, but later on it was transpired that the Chief Engineer had no authority to pass an order of promotion, rather some other appropriate authority was competent to pass the order. Consequently the order of promotion of petitioner-appellant Ram Pukar Singh was cancelled vide orders dated 25.7.1990/4.3.1993, as contained in Annexures-5, and 6 to C.W.J.C. No. 1192 of 1993. Similarly, petitioner-appellant Sita Ram Singh was reverted to his substantive post by order dated 4.3.1993 (Annexure-5 to C.W.J.C. No. 1193 of 1993 (R). These orders were challenged by means of the aforesaid two writ petitions. The prayer in these petitions were that these orders of reversion be quashed as the same had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Both the writ petitions were disposed of together by a common judgment dated 15.2.1995 with an observation that the petitioners may be promoted in future whenever there is any vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Research Officer. 5. Against that judgment these analogous Letters Patent Appeals have been filed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants urged that the before rendering the impugned orders dated 25.7.1990/4.3.1993 regarding the petitioners appellants to their substantive posts, no opportunity of hearing was granted, even though legal rights of the appellants were violated. Consequently, the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority to promote the petitioners-appellants. It was also urged that some juniors to the appellants have been promoted. Thereby, the petitioners have been discriminated. Consequently, the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority to promote the petitioners-appellants. It was also urged that some juniors to the appellants have been promoted. Thereby, the petitioners have been discriminated. The judgment of the learned single Judge is erroneous. 7. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants were refuted by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 8. As regards the first point about violation of principles of natural justice, it is not a strait-jacket formula to be applied in every case. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case as to whether the opportunity to show cause or hearing was a must. In the instant case it was decided not to afford any opportunity of hearing. 9. It has not been shown that there was any substantive vacancy of the post of Assistant Research Officer, against which the petitioners-appellants were promoted. Further it was not shown that the order was passed by an authority authorised to pass it. The petitioners in the writ petitions were reverted on the basis that there were no substantive vacancy of Assistant Research Officer, against which the petitioners appellants were promoted. 10. We have no manner of doubt that principle of Audi Alteram Partem signifies that no one shall be condemned unheard in case his legal rights are violated. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice. In Cleveland Board of Education V/s. Lames Loudermill 470 U.S. 532: 84 L. Ed. 2nd 494 (p. 503)] it was held: ...as essential principle of due proceeds is that a deprivation of life, liberty or property be preceded by notice and opportunity of hearing appropriate to the nature of case. See Maullane V/s. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 339 U.S. 306: 94 L. Ed. 865. 11 In Kamataka Public Service Commission and Ors. V/s. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors. JT judgments today 1992 (4) S.C. 348 (per His Lordship R.M. Sahai, J.) it was held: Rules of conduct of Public Service Commission Examinations are with a view to infuse discipline in competitive examinations to be conducted by Public Service Commission. The rules cannot be construed with the same yardstick as a provision in a penal statute. These examinations are conducted to get best brains. The rules cannot be construed with the same yardstick as a provision in a penal statute. These examinations are conducted to get best brains. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Absence of hearing in such matters does not affect any interest, rather it could delay declaration of results of Other candidates which would have been more unfair. Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the arbitrary action within limits. But its use has been weighed in golden balance of fairness. But the courts have been circumspect in extending it to situations where it would cause more injustice than justice. 12. In our considered humble opinion, the principle of natural justice is not a strait jacket formula. But its use has to be weighted, as to whether under a given situation it would be, just to give an opportunity of hearing. In case affording hearing would do more injustice than justice, in that event, it need not be afforded. In the instant case where there was no substantive vacancy for the post of Assistant Research Officer, s and even the alleged order for promotion of appellants to that post was not passed by the competent authority, as there was no substantive vacancy there would be no legal right of the appellants to that. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to afford opportunity of. hearing before passing an order of reversion. 13. We have perused the Governments order dated 4.4.1979, as contained in Annexure-3 to C.W.J.C. No. 1192 of 1993 (R), which makes it clear that the Superintending Engineer shall be the controlling audiority, which certainly does not mean that he was the authority to promote the petitioners appellants. Consequently, the 1242 Binodanand jha V/s. Union of India and Ors. [BLJR subsequent order dated 4.4.1979 makes it evidence that at the circle level the Chief Engineer was the competent authority to pass an order of promotion. In this view of the matter, in our view, the learned single Judge was justified in holding that the Superintending Engineer was just a controlling authority, but the impugned order has been passed by an authority not authorised to pass an order of promotion. 14. In this view of the matter, in our view, the learned single Judge was justified in holding that the Superintending Engineer was just a controlling authority, but the impugned order has been passed by an authority not authorised to pass an order of promotion. 14. Reverting to the last point, about alleged discrimination, as juniors to appellants have been promoted, suffice it to say that indications have been given in the judgment under challenge that in case persons junior to the petitioners have been promoted and in case there is vacancy in future, the cases of the petitioners should be considered in accordance with law. 15. In view of the premises aforesaid and applying Avistotelian & Bacomian reasonings, there is no error in the judgment/order of the learned single Judge and the present Letters Patent Appeals fail and they are dismissed summarily.