JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The writ petitioner is a Junior Assistant in the office of the Berhampur University in the district of Ganjam. There was a selection test held by the University to fill tip sixteen, posts of Junior Assistant In which petitioner secured fourth position, whereas opposite parties 3 to 17 were placed below him. On receipt of the appointment order he joined his service on 11-4-1985. Previously the petitioner was serving as a salesman under Chatrapur Wholesale Cooperative Stores Ltd. The President of the said co-operative stores reported to the Registrar of the University alleging that during petitioner's salesmanship there being shortage of cash, to the tune of Rs. 28,113-80 p. a case had been initiated for realisation of the same. On being so informed, the Ragistrar called for an explanation vide Annexure-3 as to why his services will not be terminated. On receipt of such notice the petitioner submitted his reply explaining that he was not liable for the alleged shortage. Despite such explanation the Registrar without holding any Inquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner terminated his service vide his order Annexure-4. Against such order of termination petitioner made a representation to the authority, but the same did not yield any result. Subsequently the President of the said Co-operative Stores issued a no-objection certificate vide letter dated 19-9-1985, Annexure-6 to the Registrar of the University intimating that the society would have no objection if the petitioner was allowed to continue in service. There upon the petitioner was given appointment as per order dated 10-10-1985, Annexure-7. In the year 1991 a provisional gradation list, Annexure-B was prepared, wherein opposite parties 3 to 17 who were below the petitioner in the merit list of the Junior Assistants were shown as senior to him. He objected to the correctness of the gradation list, but the same was not needed to. When the, matter stood thus and without finalising the provisional gradation list, the authority promoted opposite parties 3 to 9 to the posts of Senior Assistants, ignoring his legitimate claim. He was treated as junior to opposite parties 3 to 17 because of break of service from 6-7-1985 till 6-10-1985, that is for the period he was kept out of service due to termination. He was treated as junior to opposite parties 3 to 17 because of break of service from 6-7-1985 till 6-10-1985, that is for the period he was kept out of service due to termination. He has, therefore, urged that termination of his service for the aforesaid period being illegal and unjust, he should be treated to be continuing in service and he should be declared as senior to opposite parties 3 to 17. 2. On being noticed for hearing on the question of admission, opposite parties 1 and 2, namely, Vice-chancellor and the Registrar of the University jointly filed counter. As it appears from the record, opposite parties 5 and 17 though were served with the notices personally but they failed to appear and contest the proceeding. However, the remaining opposite parties jointly entered appearance and filed counter. The contentions raised by the contesting opposite parties being almost similar, it is not necessary to recapitulate the same separately. Their main contention is that the petitioner is junior to opposite parties 3 to 17 inasmuch as his services had been terminated by the time these opposite parties got appointment and later or, he being re-appointed joined his service as Junior Assistant and therefore, he cannot urge upon his employer to treat the period of termination as period of service and place him in the seniority list above opposite parties 3 to 17. In view of the contentions raised by the parties, the moot question for consideration is whether the petitioner should be held to be continuing in service from his initial appointment dated 11-4-1985 when admittedly he was out of employment of the University from 6-7-1985 to 9-10-1986, that is from the date of termination till reappointment. To answer this question it is necessary to find whether the order of termination can be held to be legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It may be reiterated that on receipt of a letter from the President, the Chatrapur Wholesale Co-operative Stores Ltd., the Registrar of the University called for an explanation vide Annexure-3 from the petitioner as to why his services will not be terminated. Neither any charge was framed against him nor was he given any opportunity of hearing. The authority accepted the allegation of misappropriation as gospel truth and inflicted harsh punishment by putting an end to his service without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Neither any charge was framed against him nor was he given any opportunity of hearing. The authority accepted the allegation of misappropriation as gospel truth and inflicted harsh punishment by putting an end to his service without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 4. It is a well-settled principle of law that no one shall be condemned unheard. This is a basic rule of natural justice which is required to be followed in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative matters. This principle of natural justice came to be considered in great detail in the case of Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax and Another in which their Lordships referred to a series of decisions of which one was the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others wherein their Lordships at page 1271 observed thus : "The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to Judicial Tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case." Bhagabati, J. (as he was then) who expressed the majority view, in paragraph 69 of the judgment held : "The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice, or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. It must logically apply to both. On what principle can distinction be made between one and the other ? Can it be said that the requirement of fair play in action' is any the less in an administrative inquiry than in a quasi-judicial one ? Sometimes an unjust decision in an administrative inquiry may have far more serious conequences than decision in a quasi-judicial inquiry and hence the rules of natural justice must apply equally in an administrative inquiry which entails civil consequences x x x." 5. The land-mark judgment in Menaka Gandhi's case regarding strict adherence to the principle of audi a teram partem in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative inquiries has cautioned that if any order is passed against a person affecting his right or if he is imposed with any punishment without giving an opportunity of being heard, then the same shall be held to be illegal, being in violation of principle of natural justice. In the case in hand the Registrar of the University, opp. party No. 2 did away with the service of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing to meet the allegations made by the President of the co-operative stores. In this view of the matter, we would unhesitatingly hold that termination of petitioner's service being illegal, he shall be deemed to be continuing in service notwithstanding that he had been subsequently given re-appointment vide Annexure-7. 6. In view of our aforesaid finding, the next question emerges for consideration is whether the petitioner shall be treated as senior to opp. parties 3 to 9. Admittedly alt these opp. parties 3 to 9 have been promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant. It is no doubt true that for no fault of his own the petitioner was kept out of service for certain period but for that opp. parties 3 to 9 who have been promoted to the next higher post cannot be blamed. The blame lies squarely on the opp. party No. 2 because it was he who illegally and arbitrarily terminated the petitioner's service. When opp. parties 3 to 9 have already availed of the benefit as Senior Assistants by being promoted by the authority, if any order is passed affecting their promotion it would unsettle the position which has long since been accepted and acted upon. party No. 2 because it was he who illegally and arbitrarily terminated the petitioner's service. When opp. parties 3 to 9 have already availed of the benefit as Senior Assistants by being promoted by the authority, if any order is passed affecting their promotion it would unsettle the position which has long since been accepted and acted upon. Be that as it may, when we have held the petitioner to be continuing in service from his initial appointment on 11-4-1985, his seniority has to be fixed accordingly and while doing so, the merit list prepared at the time of selection should be taken note of. 7. In view of our discussions made above, the termination of petitioner's service being illegal he shall be deemed to be continuing in service. Accordingly we direct the opp. parties 1 and 2 to incorporate the petitioner's name in the gradation list and give him all consequential benefits. We make it clear that petitioner's seniority will not affect the promotion of opp. parties 3 to 9. D.P. Mohapatra, A.C.J. 8. I agree.