Judgment :- M. Sathyanarayanan, J. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 12.01.2004 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). 2. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Government Advocate and Mr.K.Ravindrababu, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 3. The petitioners name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange, Nagercoil for selection to the post of bill-collector in Kollamcode Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District. There were two bill-collectors post which are permanent in the said Panchayat and for filling up the said vacancy, the second respondent has called for the list of eligible candidates from the employment Exchange. The appointment committee of the second respondent Panchayat conducted interview of 4. 1988 and based on the interview, the petitioner came to be appointed as bill-collector vide resolution of the second respondent panchayat dated 4. 1988. The petitioner has joined the post on 4. 1988 and he was also paid salary salary from that date. The first respondent had conducted the review meeting during June 1988 and it was decided that the appointment of the petitioner and one D.Babu were not in order. Therefore, the second respondent on the basis of the instructions given by the first respondent, had terminated the service of the petitioner and Babu on 16. 1988. The petitioner had filed W.P.No.15055 of 1988 challenging the order of termination and this Court had admitted the said writ petition and also granted stay of operation of the order of termination vide order dated 16. 1988. 4. The petitioner was allowed to rejoin duty and he is continuously working on the basis of the order of stay granted by this Court. After the constitution of the Tribunal the writ petition was transferred and renumbered as T.A.No.146 of 1994. During the pendency of the said transfer application, the petitioner and D.Babu were given promotion and as on date, he is working as Executive Officer Grade I. 5. The Tribunal had dismissed the T.A.No.146 of 1994 holding that the petitioners appointment was temporary and therefore his services can be dispensed with without any notice and therefore the impugned order of termination is sustainable. 6. The Tribunal had dismissed the T.A.No.146 of 1994 holding that the petitioners appointment was temporary and therefore his services can be dispensed with without any notice and therefore the impugned order of termination is sustainable. 6. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal, has filed this writ petition and also obtained interim orders and now he is continue to work in the service of the second respondent Town Panchayat. 7. The second respondent has filed his counter narrating the facts and also stated that the petitioner had passed 1st paper of Village Level Workers Community Development and 1st paper of Community Development Department Test for Officers of the Panchyayat Development in the examination held during November 1990, conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner had also passed the Village Swaraj Departmental Test for Officers of the Panchayat Development Department and he had also passed Paper III of the Constitution of India and other departmental tests. The petitioner was also given promotion and as on date he is working as Executive Officer Grade II. 8. A perusal of the impugned order of termination would reveal that as per the first respondents oral instructions during Collectors Review Meeting held on 14.06.1988, the second respondent terminated the services of the petitioner and one D.Babu without affording any opportunity whatsoever. It is an admitted fact that the names of the petitioner and D.Babu were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the appointment committee of the second respondent had considered their case on merits and gave them appointment. The order of termination passed by the second respondent merely based on oral instructions issued by the first respondent and on the face of it, it is unsustainable in law and it is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The averments in the counter affidavit of the second respondent disclose that in pursuant to the interim orders obtained by the petitioner, he continue to be in service, passed all the departmental tests and got promotion and now he is working in the cadre of Executive Officer Grade II and his services were also satisfactory without any blemish. Therefore, there is no point in remanding the matter once again to the second respondent to reconsider the order of termination. Therefore, there is no point in remanding the matter once again to the second respondent to reconsider the order of termination. As the petitioners services are satisfactory and that he is in service right from April 1988, and the service record is excellent, the petitioner can be allowed to be in service. Moreover, a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent has not disclosed any serious objection for the continuance of the petitioner in service. The first respondent has not filed his counter. 9. As the impugned order of termination passed by the second respondent on the face of it discloses that it has been passed merely on oral instructions of the first respondent without affording any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner, it is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.146 of 1994 confirming the order of termination passed by the second respondent is set aside. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.14044 of 2004 is closed.