Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Though matter has come up for admission but at joint request of both the parties, it was heard for final disposal. 2. By instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 24.03/1999 (Annexure-10) whereby order dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure-9) pursuant to which he was appointed as Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths) was cancelled by respondents. 3. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, did B.Sc. in the year 1990 and B.Ed., in 1995. Initially he was appointed as Lab. Assistant on 01.07.1995 but being qualified for the post of teacher, was asked by Head Master of Government Secondary School to teach classes of secondary level-certificates pursuant thereto were issued by Head Master on 09.05.1996 (Annexure-3) & 20.04.1998 (Annexure-4) for academic sessions of 1995-1996 & 1996-1997. On account of abolition of posts of Lab. Assistant, State Government, by its policy decision, absorbed petitioner as Teacher Grade III vide order dated 210.1997 (Annexure R/4). 4. Petitioner has come out with a case that cadre of Teachers Grade III consists of posts of Lab. Assistant and Teachers Grade III as per Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 ("Rules, 1971") and while holding post of Teacher Grade III, posts of Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths) alongwith other posts were advertised by respondents vide notification dated 14.08.1998 (Annexure-5) to fill up vacancies of previous years as also future vacancies-as per which, condition of eligibility for Senior Teacher (Maths) has been referred to Para (6) which petitioner indisputably fulfilled, he applied for the post and also participated in process of selection and after due consideration of his candidature, he was selected and placed at S.No. 638 (SC) in merit list and awarded 79.51% marks by the committee. According to petitioner, despite being higher in order of merit, one Shri Krishan Gopal, who is also member of Scheduled Caste and whose name finds place at S.No. 661 (SC) in order of merit, was appointed as Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths) vide order dated 27.02.1999 and when this fact came to his notice, he submitted his representation dated 05.03.1999 (Annexure-6). His grievance was considered by State Government and after seeking clarification from the school, where he taught secondary classes in respect of his experience as notified in certificates (Annexures 3 & 4), he was offered appointment on the post of Senior Teacher Grade II vide order dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure-9), in which his name finds place at S.No. 3 in the category of subject-Maths but before he could get his posting pursuance to order of appointment dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure-9), without assigning any reason and affording opportunity of hearing, his appointment (Annexure-9) was cancelled by respondents vide order dated 24.03.1999 (Annexure-10). Hence, this petition. 5. Shri Suresh Goyal, Counsel for petitioner has urged that no concealment was ever made by petitioner and despite he being appointed as Lab. Assistant but from the date of his initial appointment, being qualified he was asked to teach secondary classes in Government School-pursuant to which certificates (Annexures-3 and 4) were also issued by Head Master of Government School and despite placement in order of merit, when not considered for appointment, he submitted representation, and after certificates of his experience being verified by respondents, he was appointed as Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths) vide order dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure-9), and once he got appointment, legal right had accrued to him and without affording him an opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice, which is a cardinal principle of administrative law, his appointment was cancelled by respondents in an arbitrary manner which is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 6. Shri Goyal further contended that experience as required by respondents was not a condition of eligibility for the post of Senior Teacher Grade II, and requisite teaching experience would entail benefit of bonus marks to the applicant while adjudging his suitability and once petitioner has taught secondary classes as per experience certificates issued by concerned Head Master of Government School, were appointment as Lab. Assistant is of no significance and even otherwise, as per condition No. 11 of advertisement, he had a valid experience to his credit as required for grant of bonus marks which is in no manner related to nature of appointment and bonus marks have to be extended to incumbent based on teaching experience irrespective of the appointment held by him. Assistant is of no significance and even otherwise, as per condition No. 11 of advertisement, he had a valid experience to his credit as required for grant of bonus marks which is in no manner related to nature of appointment and bonus marks have to be extended to incumbent based on teaching experience irrespective of the appointment held by him. Shri Goyal also contended that once experience of teaching secondary classes from 1995 has been certified by concerned Head Master-genuineness of which has never been controverted nor doubted rather they were got verified before issuing appointment in question, no error was committed by respondents initially while grating five bonus marks to petitioner; and the reason assigned or noticed by respondents in their reply with regard to cancellation of his appointment is unreasonable and is not tenable in the eye of law. 7. Shri Goyal further contended that posts of Lab. Assistant and Teacher Grade III comes in one and common cadre, carrying one and the same pay scale, rather common seniority and eligibility list is prepared under Rules, 1971 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Grade II and even in case of present petitioner after appointed on the post of Lab. Assistant, on abolition of post was absorbed in the cadre of Teacher Grade III vide order dated 210.1997 (Annexure R/4) in such circumstances, irrespective of the post, consideration in extending bonus marks was related to those who have teaching experience to their credit and Note 2nd appended to Circular (Annexure R/2) will not operate prejudicial to his interest. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Per contra, Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Advocate has urged that since experience certificates did not disclose the post held by petitioner, while taking note of his teaching experience, he was placed at S.No. 638 (SC) in order of merit and indisputably, as per Circular dated 06.08.1998 (Annexure R/2) a clear Note was appended therein that applicants having experience of holding the post of Lab. Assistant are not entitled to get bonus marks and if the period during which petitioner held appointment of Lab. Assistant are not entitled to get bonus marks and if the period during which petitioner held appointment of Lab. Assistant cannot be reckoned for grant of bonus as per Circular (Annexure R/2) and after appointed as Teacher Grade III, his experience comes only of one year, which gives one bonus mark, and his merit changes to No. 759-A after getting over all marks corrected to 75.51%, in place of 79.51% and no person of lower merit after his revised placement in order of merit, was given appointment and in such undisputed facts, no error was committed by respondents while cancelling appointment dated 22.03.1999 in question vide order dated 24.03.1999 (Annexure 10) and it is true that in ordinary course, if prejudice has caused to the incumbent, opportunity of hearing has to be afforded, but in case of present petitioner, when facts were not disputed by petitioner, as referred to above, affording opportunity of hearing remains an empty formality and shall not serve any purpose. 9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. 10. No concealment was ever made by petitioner, and certificates of teaching experience issued to him by the Head Master of a Government School, were duly enclosed with application, which was also examined by respondents and after taking into consideration his certificates of teaching experience, he was appointed as Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths) vide order dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure 9) and once order of appointment was issued and dispatched, legal right had conferred in his favour and merely because respondents failed to give him posting order, that will not deprive him of his right. Right once conferred could not have been divested by respondents by cancellation of appointment without due compliance of principles of natural justice. 11. Requirement of principles of natural justice is not only applicable to quasi judicial orders but also to administrative decisions which are prejudicial to the party aggrieved unless expressly excluded by law. Ordinarily speaking, natural justice is an ingredient of reasonableness. It is also acknowledged that non-arbitrariness is an ingredient of Articles 14 of Constitution of India so as to pervade realm of State action and thus it stand duly established as a legal corollary that audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for which natural justice is the ante-thesis of arbitrariness. 12. It is also acknowledged that non-arbitrariness is an ingredient of Articles 14 of Constitution of India so as to pervade realm of State action and thus it stand duly established as a legal corollary that audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for which natural justice is the ante-thesis of arbitrariness. 12. As held by this Court in Ramesh Sharma vs. State, 1997 WLR (Raj) 55, no order effecting civil right of a person can be passed without affording an opportunity to the official because principles of natural justice are cardinal principles which are to be complied with by State authorities even to modify an order howsoever erroneous of illegal that order might be, if that order had bestowed any benefit on the official. 13. In this view of matter, order passed by respondents cancelling order of appointment vide order dated 24.03.1999 (Annexure-10) is in violation of principles of natural justice and is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 14. It was not a case of empty formality as argued by Counsel for respondents. The material on record clearly depicts that petitioner had teaching experience to his credit as duly certified vide Annexures 3 & 4 so also Annexures R/1 and R/4, which were considered after due verification from its issuing authority, for grant of bonus marks before giving him appointment to the post of Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths), and merely because respondents have misconception of the fact about teaching experience of petitioner or about Condition No. 11 of advertisement (Annexure-5), which could have been satisfied by petitioner only if an opportunity of hearing has been provided to him as such it was not a case of empty formality as submitted by the respondents. 15. That apart, I considered to examine the case on merits, also. The posts of Senior Teacher Grade II so also Teacher Grade III are included in Schedule appended to Rules, 1971 and as per case set up by petitioner, eligibility list for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Grade II is prepared from among common cadre of Lab. Assistant, and Teacher Grade III under the scheme of Rules, 1971. The posts of Senior Teacher Grade II so also Teacher Grade III are included in Schedule appended to Rules, 1971 and as per case set up by petitioner, eligibility list for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Grade II is prepared from among common cadre of Lab. Assistant, and Teacher Grade III under the scheme of Rules, 1971. Indisputably, petitioner fulfilled academic qualification to hold the post of Teacher and teaching experience gained by him was for grant of bonus marks upto the extent of 5 marks for the purposes of adjudging over all suitability of applicant. Teaching experience has nothing to do with eligibility to hold the post of Senior Teacher Grade II. What was required under Circular (Annexure R/2) and as per Condition 11 of advertisement from the incumbent that if one has teaching experience to his credit duly certified by the authority, he will be entitled for bonus marks as per Circular (Annexure R/2). Indisputably, petitioner had teaching experience to his credit as is evident from certificates (Annexures 3 & 4 so also from Annexures R/1 & R/4). Which has been place on record by respondents alongwith reply. Upon a careful perusal whereof , fact remains undisputed that petitioner had sufficient teaching experience of more than three years to his credit. He had applied for consideration of his candidature pursuant to advertisement (Annexure 5). Even Circular (Annexure R/2) in respect of grant of bonus marks based on teaching experience alone, endorsement of Note No. 2 is that those who were having experience as Lab. Assistant are not entitled for grant of bonus marks but in case of present petitioner, he might have been appointed as Lab. Assistant but had a teaching experience of more than three years as is evident from certificates (Annexures 3 & 4); and once certificate of teaching experience issued by Head Master of Government School (Annexure R/4) so also other certificates (Annexure R/1) are not controverted rather they were got verified by further enquiry from concerned authority at the instance of respondents, in my opinion, experience which petitioner got of teaching, cannot be ruled out and he fulfilled condition for grant of bonus marks for his teaching experience, and could not have been deprived for pursuant to note appended to Circular (Annexure R/2). In my opinion, bonus marks for teaching was rightly granted to petitioner by respondents as per Annexure R/2, and cancellation of order of his appointment vide order dated 24.03.1999 (Annexure 10) was wholly arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 16. In the net result, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 24.03.1999 (Annexure 10) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to issue posting order of petitioner pursuant to order of his appointment dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure 9) of the post of Senior Teacher Grade II (Maths). However, he will only be entitled to notional benefits flowing from order of his appointment dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure-9) in accordance with law except pecuniary benefits viz. Arrears of pay for the intervening period till he joins pursuant to order of appointment dated 22.03.1999 (Annexure-9). All exercise to comply with aforesaid direction be made within two months from today. No order as to costs.