JUDGMENT 1. 1. As many as 100 posts of Constables (G.D.) were advertised by the AGIGP Central Reserve Police Ajmer (Respondent No.2).in the month of October, 1997. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (G.D.) and faced the selection process. Vide letter dated April 18, 1998 the petitioner was given offer of appointment and he was required to appear in the office of Respondent No.2 on May 1, 1998. When the petitioner appeared on May 1, 1998 in the office of respondent No.2 for the purpose of joining his duties he was intimated that the appointments for the post of Constable were cancelled and intimation to that effect had already been sent vide letter dated April 30, 1998. Thereafter the respondent No.2 again advertised 75 posts of Constable (G.D.) by publishing advertisement in daily News Paper dated May 29, 1998. Being aggrieved against this act of respondent No.2 the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) to quash and set aside the letter dated April 30, 1998 cancelling the offer of appointment made to the petitioner on the post of Constable (G.D.); (ii) to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (G.D.) w.e.f. May 1, 1998 with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondents in their return admitted this fact that the name of the petitioner was placed in the select list of general category candidates and letter of appointment was issued to him but an error was committed in drawing up select list which was rectified before the petitioner could join the post, therefore a telegram followed by letter dated April 30, 1998 was sent to the petitioner cancelling the offer of appointment. In the combined select list of 65 candidates the petitioner could not find place therefore he was not given appointment. It was further pleaded that the subsequent advertisement of 75 posts had no relevancy with the earlier advertisement. 3. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material placed on record. 4. Every State action should be backed by transparency and fair play. The officials are not permitted to play the game of hide and seek with the unemployees of this Country. The principles of natural justice are not a 'mere ritual or dogma'. They are required to be observed religiously. 4. Every State action should be backed by transparency and fair play. The officials are not permitted to play the game of hide and seek with the unemployees of this Country. The principles of natural justice are not a 'mere ritual or dogma'. They are required to be observed religiously. There is no invariable standard of reasonableness, except that the court's conscience must be satisfied that the person has fair chance to convince, that grounds of action are not justified. Natural justice is the "natural sense of what is right and wrong". Every administrative order has to conform to principles of fair play and natural justice. When executive is given power to decide something in its discretion, the court, would still keep it in the leading strings of fair procedure. A person who invokes the principles of natural justice need not necessarily have any legal right. If he has a legitimate expectation which is being denied to him, he is entitled to invoke the principles of natural justice and claim that before his legitimate expectations were denied to him, he was entitled to be heard. 5. Coming to the facts of the instant case it maybe noticed that vide letter dated April 18, 1998 the respondent No.2 found the petitioner eligible to be appointed on the post of Constable (G.D.) and the petitioner was asked to join the said post on May 1, 1998. Suddenly vide letter dated April 30, 1998 the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that posts of Constable (G.D.) stood reduced. Undeniably after few days of cancelling the appointment of the petitioner i.e. on May 29, 1998, 75 posts of Constable (G.D.) were advertised. Although the respondents made an attempt to justify their action by pleading that selection of the petitioner was a mistake on the part of respondent No.2 as he had wrongly advertised 100 posts of Constable (G.D.) whereas he could have only filled 65 posts of Constable (G.D.), but no material was produced to show that Respondent No.2 was entitled to recruit only 65 Constables (G.D.). Documents Annexure R-1 and R-2 do not provide any help to the respondents. These documents contain instructions relating to post based rosters and were issued respectively on December 12, 1996 and July 2, 1997, whereas the advertisement for the 100 posts was published by Respondent No.2 on October 4, 1997. Documents Annexure R-1 and R-2 do not provide any help to the respondents. These documents contain instructions relating to post based rosters and were issued respectively on December 12, 1996 and July 2, 1997, whereas the advertisement for the 100 posts was published by Respondent No.2 on October 4, 1997. It can be safely inferred that Respondent No.2 had published the advertisement after carefully reading the instructions issued in the letters annexure R-1 and R-2. 6. To my mind the act of respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner lacks transparency and fair play, it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned letter dated April 30, 1998 is set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner forthwith on the post of Constable (G.D.), that was kept reserved vide interim order dated December 10, 1998, in pursuance to their letter dated April 18, 1998. The petitioner shall be treated as Constable (G.D.) w.e.f. May 1, 1998, but shall only be entitled to 50% of the back wages. No costs.Petition allowed. *******