Judgment :- This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 30.3.99 made in Roc.No.4/Ma.A.Ku/99 and to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits including the time scale of pay applicable to the petitioner as granted to similar posts in the other Districts of Tamil Nadu. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a driver for Mobile Medical Inspection Van by order dated 31.8.1976 on a consolidated pay of Rs.180/- p.m. and he joined duty on 2.9.1976 at Cuddalore under the first respondent and subsequently he was paid Rs.425/- p.m. from 1.1.83 to 31.12.1989 and he was paid a consolidated day of Rs.1200/- p.m. from 1.1.90 to 31.1.96 and Rs.1500/- from 1.2.96 till the time of termination of his service; that by proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.3.99 which was to take effect from 1.4.99 (F.N.), the petitioner was terminated from service even without any notice or without giving any opportunity to him; that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice; that the petitioner has been working in the department for the past 23 years; that it was a permanent post; that the duty and responsibility of the first respondent is to provide annual medical check up to each and every students in the District in the High School and Higher Secondary schools for which the government spends substantial amount; that the School authorities are collecting fees amount from the school students every year; thus the nature of the duty and the need of service of the petitioner is a permanent one. Hence, the first respondent has no power or authority to terminate the service of the petitioner abruptly even without notice to him. Hence, the first respondent has no power or authority to terminate the service of the petitioner abruptly even without notice to him. Added further learned counsel that there were two permanent posts of drivers under the first respondent in the said Medical Inspection scheme and that the other van driver died about 4 years ago and the vacancy was not yet filled up by the respondent and that at the time of termination, the petitioner was the only driver working there and in order to accommodate some one else in the place of the petitioner even without a notice, the service of the petitioner was terminated which is arbitrary, high handed and illegal and hence, taking into consideration of the above facts, the order of the first respondent has got to be set aside and the first respondent should be directed to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of driver. 3. 3. What was all contended by the respondent side is that it is true that the petitioner was working under the first respondent as a driver; that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis to the Mobile Medical Inspection van and he had served from 2.1.76 to 31.3.99; that the said Medical Inspection Committee is not a Government Organisation but it is only a registered Society; that the entire affair of the committee was not from the Medical Inspection Special fees collected from the students at the rate of Rs.1/- in the High/Higher Secondary School and as such the petitioner who worked as a driver is not governed by the statutory rules; that the petitioner had served till the date of termination only on consolidated pay and that his service was not required since the van attached to the committee was in a condemned status and moreover the Officer under the scheme are not willing to work in the scheme considering the low salary; that the petitioner had been paid without work from 17.3.90 to 31.3.99 and the financial position of the Mobile Medical Inspection Committee was not sound to accommodate the petitioner without work any more and hence, the service was terminated with effect from 1.4.99; that the petitioner was not entitled for notice in tune to the nature of his appointment; that the petitioner has no right muchless fundamental right to claim permanency in the post and that the impugned order is violative of the constitutional provisions; that since the petitioner was not governed under the service rule, his service were dispensed with without issuing show cause notice and the same cannot be questioned by the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was no longer in service and the question of fixation of time pay scale would not arise and hence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. 4. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was appointed as a driver under the Mobile Medical Inspection Van of the first respondent on 2.9.76 and he continued to serve till 31.3.99 without any break. The order of the first respondent which is challenged was served on him stating that the service of the petitioner was terminated and it has its effect from 1.4.99 (F.N.). The order of the first respondent which is challenged was served on him stating that the service of the petitioner was terminated and it has its effect from 1.4.99 (F.N.). The contention of the petitioner side that the termination order was served without calling for explanation and without giving opportunity of hearing, is not disputed by the respondent side. Hence, in short it has to be stated that the order of termination which is under challenge is an out come of violation of principle of natural justice and on that account, it has got to be set aside. The contention of the respondent is that the van which was attached to the first respondent Medical Committee was condemned and under such circumstances, the petitioner service was no more required and hence, his service was terminated, cannot be accepted for the reason that it was a Mobile Medical Inspection Committee which has to serve throughout the District in order to conduct the medical check up for the students in the High School and Higher Secondary Schools. It is also not in dispute that for the medical inspection, a special fee of Rs.1/- is collected from each student and that the performance of duties and responsibilities of the first respondent cannot be stopped and it has to be continued. Even, from the very averments made in the counter, it could be seen that steps were taken to purchase a new vehicle with the permission of the Director of School education, Madras. Under such circumstances, it is evident that vehicle is not in good condition and it has got to be repaired or a new vehicle has to be purchased. However, the duty of the Committee has to be performed without break. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as soon as the vehicle was purchased, the petitioner will be again appointed as driver on a consolidated pay. Now, at this juncture, it is not the case of the respondent that a new van has not been purchased or the committee of the Mobile Inspector is abruptly stopped. Therefore, the order of the first respondent has got to be quashed for the reason that the principles of natural justice has been flouted. 5. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the first respondent dated 30.3.1999. Therefore, the order of the first respondent has got to be quashed for the reason that the principles of natural justice has been flouted. 5. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the first respondent dated 30.3.1999. The first respondent is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner and the petitioner shall continue in the post held by him prior to the termination. This order shall be complied within a period of two months herefrom. No costs.