ORDER Arun Mishra, J. In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed order (P-3) by which the appointment order on daily wage basis out of Nirashrit Fund has been cancelled. It appears that without any proposal of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and without passing any resolution by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dy. Director, Agriculture Department, ordered appointment of petitioner for recovery of Nirashrit Fee. Though the order was passed on 18-9-1996, it was made effective w.e.f. 17-9-1996. The appointment was objected by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and representation (R-5) was submitted on 27-9-1996. It was mentioned that there was total ban of any kind of appointment imposed by the Director/Commissioner of Mandi, Bhopal. Krishi Upaj Mandi has not passed any resolution nor has asked for service of any employee and Nirashrit Fund has been overburdened with 7 employees. As such appointment was cancelled. Dy. Director, Agriculture Department on 26-9-1996 ordered the cancellation of the appointment. The matter was also reported to the Agricultural Minister of the State about the illegality done by the Dy. Director. It appears that Dy. Director has also pointed out illegality of the appointment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though appointment was made on daily wage basis but could not have been dealt with in arbitrary manner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has contended that there was a ban created on any kind of appointment by the Director as mentioned in the order (R-3) dated 12-1-1995. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti did not require service of any employee in Nirashrit Fund. Initially there was only one employee and thereafter it was burdened with 7 employees. Neither any resolution was passed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti nor it asked for the service of the any further employee for collection of Nirashrit Fund. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the various documents and also firstly the fact that the appointment was on daily wage basis, secondly petitioner had rendered the service only for the period of 11 days, thirdly the order was rightly recalled, in such circumstances, no right had accrued to the petitioner. It is not the case that any junior to the petitioner has been retained in service. Petitioner has not rendered long service, conferring on him any right even on daily wage basis. It is not the case that any junior to the petitioner has been retained in service. Petitioner has not rendered long service, conferring on him any right even on daily wage basis. It is true that order was recalled but the fact cannot be ignored and overlooked that there was total ban at the time when appointment was made by the Dy. Director, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was not consulted and it has not asked for service of any employee for collection of Nirashrit Fund. It appears that there was no requirement. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission raised that there was a violation of principles of natural justice while passing the order, cannot be accepted as the applicability of principles of natural justice have to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the instant case, no right accrued to the petitioner on the basis of an order, which itself was on daily wage basis and petitioner had rendered the service for short duration of only 11 days. Service of the petitioner could have been discontinued at any time as he was a daily wager. Grant of opportunity of hearing in such exigencies would have been an empty formality. In my opinion, no case has been made out by the petitioner to make any interference in this writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to make an interference in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed