ORDER Arun Mishra, J.—The validity of the order of removal of Petitioner is in question. Petitioner was initially working on daily-wages. He was later on selected by the District Selection Committee, and regularized and thereafter given march order without issuance of show-cause notice as per order dated 6-10-2001. 2. The Petitioner was initially taken in the service on daily wages. He belongs to backward community. He was appointed on 17-10-1994. He was working on vacant sanctioned post, which was reserved for backward class. Petitioner belonged to the same. D.P.C. was fixed to consider his case for regularization and duly constituted selection committee considered his case and passed resolution Annexure-P/8 on 2-3-1996 ordering regularization of the services of the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto an order- Annexure P/9 was issued on 4-3-1996 appointing the Petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1530. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years. It was directed that the Petitioner was entitled to get the basic pay and dearness allowance as approved by the council, for a period of five years. In case, if during this period the Government issues any order, then the aforesaid restriction will not be effective. It appears that pursuant to the order of Government dated 31-7-2001- Annexure-P/l, the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department wrote to the Dy. Director Urban Administration and Development, Sagar Division, Sagar that services of Shri Mahendra Chourasiya, the Petitioner herein, should be dispensed with. Based on this direction, resolution Annexure-P/13 was passed on 28-9-2001 by Nagar Parishad, Maharajpur removing the Petitioner. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he was not heard by the State Government prior to issuance of direction to remove him, nor opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Nagar Panchayat concerned. The Petitioner case is that since he was regularized and belongs to reserved category, the general direction of the Government that no appointment should be made on daily wage after 31-12-1988 was not applicable and once he was regularly selected by the Selection Committee and he was serving satisfactorily, his services could not be get rid off in violation of principles of natural justice. The action is unfair and is violative of protection conferred under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. The action is unfair and is violative of protection conferred under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that since the Petitioner's entry was from back door, he did not come through open competition and no writ can be issued to revive an illegal action. He places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, and relies on "useless formality theory". The District Selection Committee was not competent to direct regularization as the appointment is governed by the M.P. Municipal Service, though in his submission, the District Selection Committee directed to regularize the services of the Petitioner, but, the procedure was not adopted. Thus, it would be a case of "useless formality theory" to grant hearing to the Petitioner, as such the Petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector is available, hence, the writ petition should not be entertained. 5. Firstly, the question of alternative remedy is being examined. There is direction issued by the Government, hence, the appeal before the Collector cannot be said to be an efficacious alternative remedy. It would be a futile remedy. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , in similar circumstances, held that availability of alternative remedy not to be a bar. 6. Position by now is settled, though there is no strait jacket for applying principle of natural justice, when an incumbent is appointed to the service which involves his right to livelihood and he was regularized and appointed on probation basis and had completed that period of probation and continued to serve for about five years after passing the order of regularization, basic minimum requirement of passing any adverse order against his interest is the observance of rule of hearing. Person's livelihood cannot be get rid of simply by determining an illegality behind his back that too after about five years. It is not the case that the Petitioner is not having the right to post or post held was such any time person could be appointed on pleasure. 7. In Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Person's livelihood cannot be get rid of simply by determining an illegality behind his back that too after about five years. It is not the case that the Petitioner is not having the right to post or post held was such any time person could be appointed on pleasure. 7. In Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, the Supreme Court held that the order having civil consequences should passed consistently with the observance of principles of natural justice. They are inhered in every administrative civil action carrying civil consequences. The shift now is to a broader notion of "fairness" or "fair procedure" in the administrative action. 8. Shridhar Vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Others, the Supreme Court has held that it is an elementary of principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the Appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. 9. In case of appointments which were made invalidly in Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, , the Supreme Court held that it is necessary to give hearing to the employees so appointed and thereafter the services should have been dispensed with. The appointments have been cancelled because the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to make the appointments, it was a device of by-passing the reservations and that the conditions which are part of the appointment order were not complied with. The Appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointments. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the Appellants could be passed without complying with the rule of natural justice. 10. In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Jayakumar Parida, the Supreme Court held that when an incumbent had rendered three years service, there was allegation of having secured appointment by producing false income certificate, it was held that prior opportunity of hearing is a must. In Director General of Police and others Vs. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and others, , the allegation was of securing the appointment on the basis of fake list of employment exchange. In Director General of Police and others Vs. Mrityunjoy Sarkar and others, , the allegation was of securing the appointment on the basis of fake list of employment exchange. It was held that hearing opportunity should be provided before passing an adverse order; opportunity of representation should be afforded and thereafter speaking order should have been passed. 11. Principles of natural justice cannot be fitted in a straight jacket as held by their Lordships in Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . In Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan and Another, , the Supreme Court held that automatic termination clause in the event of over-staying the leave cannot be invoked without holding an enquiry into the causes of such overstay. 12. In Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and Others, the Supreme Court held that if appointment is contrary to rules, it cannot be set aside without hearing even though rule provides that such an appointment can be terminated without notice. 13. The reliance of the Learned Counsel on Aligarh Muslim University (supra) is not of any avail in the instant case as "useless formality theory" as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Aligarh Muslim University (supra), has to be applied to the fact of a particular case. It is not that of general application. Thus, right of hearing cannot be said to be an useless formality which is required to be observed by the Respondents before taking right of livelihood in the facts of instant case. The facts of Aligarh Muslim University (supra) are totally different and ratio is applicable to a particular fact situation which is not obtainable in the instant case. 14. Learned Counsel further relies on a decision of Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , to contend that the Court would not issue a writ to revive an illegality. No doubt, it is settled position that the Court may refuse to issue writ to revive patent illegality, but, I do not find it so in the instant case when the District Selection Committee which was duly constituted under the rules had taken decision to regularize the Petitioner. It was not a case of committing patent illegality. Thus, decision is of no help to the cause espoused by the Learned Counsel for the interveners. 15. It was not a case of committing patent illegality. Thus, decision is of no help to the cause espoused by the Learned Counsel for the interveners. 15. In view of the aforesaid it is clear that even in the case of invalid appointment or in case where validity of order of appointment is questioned, it is necessary that opportunity of hearing should be granted to the person concerned. However, considering the period, for which, the Petitioner has rendered the services, he was regularized by duly constituted selection committee, he should have been heard. The impugned action is arbitrary and patently violative of principle of natural justice which is part and parcel and edifice of Article 14, noncompliance of which amounts to denial of protection of law under Article 14. The order of removal, thus cannot withstand test of judicial scrutiny and is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. 16. The Writ Petition is allowed. The Petitioner is directed to be reinstated along with backwages. However, it would be open to the Respondents to take action in accordance with law. Costs on parties. Final Result : Allowed