JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioners in both these writ petitions came to be appointed as Class IV employees. Though they were promoted temporarily as Lower Division Clerks but the promotion was continued for a long time. Suddenly the respondent No. 2 vide order dated May 12, 2000 reverted them back as Class IV employees. The petitioners seek to quash the said order of reversion and also pray to set aside the Notification dated June 28, 1985 whereby amendment was introduced in sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 (for short the 1957 Rules). 2. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 3. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised various preliminary objections. His one of the objections was that validity of Notification dated June 28, 1985 could not have been assailed after such a long delay of 15 years. I find merit in this submission. Admittedly the petitioners have challenged the amendment incorporated in Rule 12(2) of the 1957 Rules vide Notification dated June 28, 1985 by filing these writ petitions on May 25, 2000 and in my considered opinion they are not entitled to this relief because of laches on their part. 4. The only clinching and meaningful question that requires consideration is whether the rules of natural justice ought to have been complied with before passing the order to the detriment of the petitioners ? 5. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned counsel canvassed that the promotion of the petitioners was per se illegal as they did not possess the prescribed qualification for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Under these circumstances they were not entitled to show cause notice. Reliance was placed on State of M.P. v. Shyama Pardhi, (1996) 7 SCC 118 and M.P. Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam v. Devendra K. Jain, (1995) 6 SCC 638. 6. It is well settled that if the administrative authorities are enjoined to decide the rights of the parties, it is essential that such administrative authority should accord fajr and proper hearing to the person to be affected by the order and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons. Such reasons must be on relevant material factors objectively considered. 6. It is well settled that if the administrative authorities are enjoined to decide the rights of the parties, it is essential that such administrative authority should accord fajr and proper hearing to the person to be affected by the order and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons. Such reasons must be on relevant material factors objectively considered. Rules of natural justice are not rigid rules, they are flexible and their application depends upon the setting and the background of statutory provision, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences which may entail its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. These principles do not apply to all cases and situations. Applications of these uncodified rules are often excluded by express provision or by implication. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope and extent of applicability of natural justice to administrative actions and observed as under:- "So far as the audi alteram partem rule is concerned, both the in England and in India, it is well established that where a right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action such a right can be excluded. This right can also be excluded where the nature of the action to be taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrant its exclusion; nor can the audi alteram partem rule be invoked if importing it would have the effect of paralysing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency of taking actions so demands as pointed out in Maneka Gandhi's case (1978) 2 SCR 621 ) ( AIR 1978 SC 597 )." 7. Coming to the facts of the instant case it may be noticed that most of the petitioners got promotion in the year 1990 and in the month of May 2000 when the impugned order was passed, no urgency for taking the action for reverting the petitioners existed. There is no provision in the 1957 rules that warrants the exclusion of audi alterem partem rule, therefore it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to provide fair and proper hearing to the petitioners. There is no provision in the 1957 rules that warrants the exclusion of audi alterem partem rule, therefore it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to provide fair and proper hearing to the petitioners. Authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of these cases. In State of M.P. v. Shyama Pardhi (supra), Shyama Pardhi and others did not possess prescribed qualifications and they were wrongly selected and sent for training. After their appointment they were served with notice that their selection for training was illegal and their services would be terminated, under these circumstances Two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated that question of violation of principles of natural justice did not arise. In M.P. Hastha Shilp's case (supra) it was stated in the appointment order that appointment was made purely on temporary basis and services were liable to be terminated at any time or without notice or assigning any reason. It was therefore held that the employee was not entitled for being heard before passing the order of termination. 8. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove the impugned order dated May 12, 2000 in so far as it relates to the petitioners, being violative of principles of natural justice stands set aside. 9. The writ petitions, accordingly are allowed in part as indicated above. Costs easy.Writ Petition Allowed in Part. *******