Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that after being appointed on urgent temporary basis as a Reader in the department of Electronics Instrumentation and Control, and selected in open competition on the recommendation of the Committee, the revised pay scale granted to the petitioner later on withdrawn and he was considered for the pay scale of Reader only from the date of his regular selection. 2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer (Electronics Engineer) in Engineering College, Kota vide order dated October 31, 1984 and was confirmed with effect from December 10, 1986. The petitioner was granted senior scale under the Career Advancement Scheme of All India Council of the Technical Education (AICTE) with effect from January 22, 1992. Since, the post of Reader being the selection post was to be filled in open selection, advertisements were published on July 12, 1993 and September 13, 1994. Pursuant to the advertisements the petitioner applied but the Principal Engineering College (respondent No. 2) did not initiate recruitment process and petitioner was deprived of his regular selection inspite of being eligible in all respect. Thereafter, in exercise of power under Rule 22 of the Rules of Engineering College Society Kota (for short Rules) the Principal of Engineering College (respondent No. 2) appointed the petitioner as Reader in Electronics Instrumentation and Control on urgent temporary basis vide order dated November 16, 1994 for a period of one year and this period was further extended till November 18, 1996 vide order dated November 6, 1995. 3. On May 20, 1995 advertisement was issued for the post of Reader. The petitioner submitted application and was considered for the post of Reader in Electronics and Communication and on the basis of recommendation of Selection Committee, he was appointed on the said post vide order dated August 16, 1996. On completion of probation period the petitioner was confirmed on the said post with effect from August 17, 1997. 4. The revised pay scale of 1998 were made effective from January 1, 1996 by AICTE with the approval of Department of Technical Education and vide order dated December 22, 1999 the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scales being the existing employee in the cadre of Reader with effect from January 1, 1996. 5. 4. The revised pay scale of 1998 were made effective from January 1, 1996 by AICTE with the approval of Department of Technical Education and vide order dated December 22, 1999 the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scales being the existing employee in the cadre of Reader with effect from January 1, 1996. 5. Vide letter dated December 6, 2001 (issued on December 22) the petitioner was asked to show cause that since his fixation in the revised pay scale was erroneously made, then why the excessive amount paid to him be not recovered. 6. The petitioner, in his reply to show cause notice averred that once he was appointed as Reader, he was existing employee in the said cadre and was entitled for his fixation in the revised pay scale made applicable with effect from January 1, 1996 and the Principal, Engineering College (respondent No. 2) rightly passed order dated December 22, 1999. 7. Ignoring the reply of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 passed order on February 26, 2002 wherein reference of audit objection was made, and the fixation of the petitioner was revised by completely obliterating the services rendered by the petitioner as Reader on urgent temporary basis. In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated February 26, 2002. .8. In the written statement the respondent No. 2 pleaded that as per circular dated October 27, 1999 issued by the Ministry HRD Government of India, the selection scale could be granted only from the date of regular appointment and the petitioner had no legal right to get the selection scale in the temporary status. 9. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the record. 10. Before proceeding further it will be useful to have a look at Rule 22 of the Rules which provides as under:-“Rule 22 - The temporary or officiating appointment of temporary/permanent vacancy in the service may be filled in for a period not exceeding one year by the appointing authority thereof in an officiating capacity. A suitable officer who is eligible for his appointment under the provisions of these rules for promotion was allowing as a person selected for appointment by direct recruitment or promotion is not available to fill in the post.” 11. A suitable officer who is eligible for his appointment under the provisions of these rules for promotion was allowing as a person selected for appointment by direct recruitment or promotion is not available to fill in the post.” 11. It appears from the material on record that since respondent No. 2 failed to discharge legal obligation in not holding regular selection, the petitioner who was eligible to hold the post of Reader, was appointed on the said post under Rule 22 of the Rules. In this peculiar situation petitioners legal right for fixation in the revised pay scale was protected and since he was holding the post of Reader as on January 1, 1996, his fixation was made in the revised pay scales. The legitimate right of the petitioner being the existing employee in the cadre of Reader on January 1, 1996 when the revised pay scale rules came into force was considered by the respondent No. 2 bearing in mind the lapses of the institution in not holding the regular selection. On the basis of audit objection the petitioner could not have been deprived of such right. Even circular dated October 27, 1999 does not deprive the petitioner from the right conferred to him under Rule 22 of the Rules. The circular only reiterate the source by which the post of Reader is to fill. In my opinion the vary interpretation taken note of by the respondent No. 2 of circular dated October 27, 1999 holding that the revised fixation was made applicable with effect from January 1, 1996 to only those employees on the post which was held by them on regular basis, is totally erroneous. Undeniably the sole basis behind passing of the impugned order dated February 26, 2002, was the audit objection which was not made available to the petitioner. Thus, the order dated February 26, 2002 is arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 12. For these reasons I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated February 26, 2002 The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the total service rendered by the petitioner in the cadre of Reader with effect from November 19, 1994 for his fixation and for all consequential benefits from the date of his first appointment in the cadre of Reader. There shall be no order as to costs.