JUDGMENT Honble Mr. V.K. Bhatnagar Member (Adm.). The case of the applicant is that he had appeared for interview for the post of Craft Teacher on June 29,1989 before respondent No. 3 but he was offered the post of Gas-Man in Govt. College Chamba in the pay scale of Rs. 810-1440 vide orders dated January 5,1990 contained in Annexure-A/1. In compliance to these orders he joined as such on January 6/1990. However, vide orders dated May 3,1990 the appointment order of the applicant had been withdrawn with immediate effect; copy placed as Annexure-A/2, without affording him an opportunity whatsoever and that the impugned order has been passed in utter disregard of principles of natural justice. 2. The applicant has prayed that the impugned order Annexure-A/2 dated May 3,1990 may be quashed and set aside and the applicant may be allowed to continue as Gas-Man in accordance with the law. 3. The respondents in their reply have stated that the appointment of the applicant as Gas-Man was violative of Recruitment & Promotion Rules according to which the appointment of Gas-Man is to be made from amongst the regular Class IV/Lab staff working in the concerned College on the basis of seniority. It has also been stated that the department of Employment had also objected to this appointment because the name of the applicant had not been sponsored for the post of Gas-Man. It has also been mentioned that the impugned order was issued because there was an error in making the original appointment and the impugned order had only sought to rectify the error; that the appointment was wrong and illegal ab initio and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed for. 4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the facts given above are admitted by both the parties. 5. The short question for consideration is as to whether the earlier appointment order issued on January 5,1990 could have been withdrawn without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Obviously the order contained in Annexure-A/2 is an adverse order and the principles of natural justice required that no adverse order be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person to represent against the same. 6. Obviously the order contained in Annexure-A/2 is an adverse order and the principles of natural justice required that no adverse order be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person to represent against the same. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred the case of The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP and others Versus Kumari Chitra Srivastava and others 1970 (1) S.C.C. 121. In this case the petitioner had appeared in the examination and had answered all the questions. However, the examination was later cancelled by the Board on the plea that her attendance in the class were not adequate. It was held that an adverse order passed without giving an opportunity to the student in question. On that basis the Allahabad High Court had allowed the writ petition against which the Board had gone in appeal to the Honble Supreme Court. The order of the High Court had been upheld on the grounds that the cancellation of examination without giving an opportunity to the students to represent their case was violative of principles of natural justice. 7. In the present case also, the adverse order has been passed without hearing the applicant and as such the order contained in Annexure-A/2 cannot sustained. However, the respondents will be at liberty to pass a valid order after complying with the requirement of principles of natural justice. In case an adverse order is passed the applicant can approach appropriate forum for relief. 8. With the observations the application is allowed and Annexure-A/ 2 dated May 3,1990 is set aside with no order as to costs.