JUDGMENT The petitioner by way of filing the present petition has challenged the order Annexure-A-1 to the petition which was passed on 24th February, 1995. By the aforesaid order the appointment on compassionate ground was given to the petitioner, has been cancelled. In the present case, the respondent Corporation has not filed return to dispute the facts. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned Annexure P-1 is an order which is prejudicial to the petitioner and therefore it was necessary for the respondent, before passing the order to give an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, no opportunity has been given. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the apex Court which is reported in AIR 1998 SC 3261 [Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and others]. On the basis of the aforesaid, I am of the view that since the impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the said order has to be quashed. In the present case, apart from the aforesaid, this Court while admitting the petition on 31st March, 1995 has stayed the operation of the order Annexure-A-l to the petition. By the force of the stay order passed by this Court, the petitioner continues to be in the employment. Shri Ramesh Shrivastava also submitted the photostate copy of the service book and submitted that the Commissioner by his order dated 16.7.1997 has declared the petitioner as permanent and also directed for grant of annual increment. In view of this subsequent event there is no need in the present case to direct for giving an opportunity by the respondents to initiate any fresh proceeding and the order i.e. Annexure-A-l stands quashed. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.