JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.2.2000 (Annex. 11) by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been given appointment under the special provisions of Rule of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 as a Teacher Gr. III which provides for preference to the women candidate. The petitioner's case had been considered and appointment had been offered to her as a divorcee but after giving her the appointment, the authority of the to respondent came to know that her case was pending before the competent Court for divorce and therefore she could not have been appointed as a divorcee. The petitioner was served the show cause notice to file a reply. As the petitioner was not feeling well and she was proceeded on medical leave she could not furnish her explanation and sought extension of time. However without extending the time to the petitioner to file the reply, the impugned order of terminating her services has been passed. 3. The issue raised by Shri Vikram Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. This submission has no force particularly in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. O.P Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679 , Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka & Anr., (1993) 1 SCC 422 and Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Education Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr, (1999) 7 SCC 332 wherein it has consistently been held that the principles of natural justice may not apply in cases where on admitted or indisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law there is no option for the authority to pass any other alternative order. 4. In the instant case, as the petitioner's case for divorce is still pending before the competent Court and she has not yet been granted the decree of divorce, petitioner could not have been given the appointment as a divorcee. 5. Therefore, her appointment itself becomes de hors the Rules and could not be enforced and remains inconsequential. 6. It is settled legal proposition that any appointment de hors the Rules cannot be enforced. 5. Therefore, her appointment itself becomes de hors the Rules and could not be enforced and remains inconsequential. 6. It is settled legal proposition that any appointment de hors the Rules cannot be enforced. (Vide Ravindra Sharma v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 277 , State of M.P. v. Shyama Pardhi, (1996) 7 SCC 118 ; Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp. 4 SCC 706 ; State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Bhat, 1997(7) JT 287 , Patna University v. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Tiwari, AIR 1997 SC 3456 ; M.P. Electricity Board v. S.S. Modh & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3463 ; Manohar v. Sanjay Education Society, (1999) 9 SCC 118 ; and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1999) 9 SCC 573 . 7. Thus, in view of the above, petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******