RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE Deputy Commissioner (E) Trade Tax, Azamgarh held a test for the post of Junior Clerks in Trade Tax Department, in which the petitioner was selected. He was appointed vide appointment letter dated 14. 7. 1997 and was directed to join in the Mandal Karyalaya, Trade Tax department, Jaunpur. He was also sent to the Institute of Secretariat Training of Management, faizabad, where he had undergone training w. e. f. 14. 12. 1998 to 23. 12. 1998. The appointment of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20- 1. 150-EB-25-1. 500 was wholly temporary in nature and was liable to be terminated at any time by giving one months notice. The appointment letter dated 14. 7. 1997 containing the terms and conditions of the appointment is reproduced below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 3 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 13,7. 2000. By which the impugned order the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled after about 3 years of his service in the department on the ground that the selection of the petitioner was not proper as in the selection of 1997 for the post of Junior Clerks, as the merit list of the candidates was not properly prepared according to Rules. ( 4 ) THE letter of termination dated 13. 7. 2000 containing the reason for termination of the services of the petitioner is as under :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 5 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that his appointment has been illegally and arbitrarily cancelled by the impugned order dated 13. 7. 2000 ; terminating his services without giving any prior notice or opportunity of hearing or show cause to him. ( 6 ) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not given the charge and is still holding the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has become overage for government service, as according to his High School certificate his date of birth is 1. 1. 1975. ( 6 ) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not given the charge and is still holding the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has become overage for government service, as according to his High School certificate his date of birth is 1. 1. 1975. It is also stated that the interpretation of law has given in the impugned order of termination of services by the respondents is not permissible and the said order is illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 7 ) STANDING counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that 12 vacancies for the post of junior Clerks/typist were advertised and instead of the merit list being prepared according to the u. P. Public Service (Reservation for S. C. , S. T. and O. B. C.) Act, 1994, it was inadvertently prepared separately. He further submits that the petitioner would have been placed at serial No. 6 of the joint merit list and not at serial No. 4. ( 8 ) THE standing counsel contends that the petitioner would not have been selected in the aforesaid circumstances as there were only 4 posts and appointment was rightly cancelled by the impugned order dated 13. 7. 2000. It is also submitted by him that a reserved category candidate sri Vtnod Kumar S/o. Ram Sevak had obtained 114. 8 marks was entitled to be appointed in general Category instead of the petitioner who had obtained less marks than him. The attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexure-C. A.-II of the affidavit, in support of his contention, which is a chart showing merits of the candidates. He contends that when the appointment is made against the Rule, it can be cancelled at any time and such appointment is not valid in eyes of law. ( 9 ) IT is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner was a general candidate and has been selected in open competition and has been working with the respondents for about 3 years. It is also not in dispute that there was no fault of the petitioner in preparation of the select list as he was never associated with its preparation. It is also not in dispute that there was no fault of the petitioner in preparation of the select list as he was never associated with its preparation. Even according to the terms and conditions of the service, the petitioner was entitled to at least an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of appointment but no notice or opportunity has been given to him and he has been hit "by a bolt from blue" after about 3 years of his appointment. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has reasonable expectation that after having been appointed, he will continue in service but his expectation have been belied. It is settled legal principle that no party can take advantage of its own folly. It is not the case of any party that appointment had been secured by the petitioner by fraud or misrepresentation. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that they had not properly prepared the select list. The authorities have also not applied their mind before issuing the impugned order as tq the fact whether the petitioner could have been appointed during the life of the waiting list, even if he was placed at serial No. 6. The respondent cannot be permitted to cancel the appointment of the petitioner in illegal and whimsical manner after about 3 years ; he worked in the department in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has a vested right after 3 years of his selection and his appointment cannot be cancelled in the Illegal manner in which, it has been cancelled by the respondents. The action of the respondents is unreasonable, unfair and lacks transparency. ( 11 ) IT is not only the duty of the Court to do justice but also to prevent injustice from being done. The equity and law both are in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and law is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) FOR these reasons stated above the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13. 7. 2000 is quashed. No order as to costs. .