JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners challenge legality and validity of the order dated 22-22005 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioners working as Shiksha Kannis were removed from services and the order dated 27-7-2004 (Annexure P/2) whereunder the petitioners after having completed three years probation period were not regularized. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25-7 -1998 (Annexure P/3) the petitioners were appointed on the post Shiksha Karmis Grade - I, II & III under the provisions of "Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Kanni Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharte Niyam 1998" by appointment letter dated 25-9-1998 (Annexure P/6). Subsequently by order dated 1-5-1999 (Annexure P /7) the appointment order was modified to the extent that the appointment was initially on a probation period of three years. The petitioners completed their probation period after completion of three years. Services of the petitioners were not regularized, but the petitioners were permitted to continue in service till 22-2- 2005 when the impugned order was passed. Thus, this petition. 3. Mr. TIwari, learned Sr. counsel with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have completed the probation period of three years. The petitioners could not be regularized as no formal order of regularization was passed. The petitioners were also not communicated any adverse remark or notice during the period. The petitioners made their representations for regularization of their services. The respondent No.1, instead of considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization, removed the petitioners from services without issuing any show cause notice or enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to put-forward their cases. Mr. Tiwari would further contend that the appointment of the petitioners was in accordance with law through proper selection and as such the appointments of the petitioners were regular and proper. Mr. Tiwari would further contend that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petitioners be reinstated in service with consequential benefits and regularization thereof. 4. Per contra, Mr. Agrawal. learned Sr. counsel with Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 would submit that admittedly the petitioners were selected through proper selection process in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Agrawal. learned Sr. counsel with Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 would submit that admittedly the petitioners were selected through proper selection process in accordance with law. However, on enquiry it was found that the petitioners were not properly qualified to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Kermis Grade-I, II & III respectively. An internal enquiry was conducted on the ground that since the appointment of the candidates was on account of lack of qualification, without affording an opportunity of hearing, the petitioners were removed from services. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the Secretary, Environment and Urban Development on 21-9-2004 for regularization of the services of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 vide letter dated 19-10-2004 intimated the respondent No.1 that in enquiry conducted on 27-10-1998, the appointment ofthe petitioners were found irregular, therefore, steps be taken to remove them from services. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 on the basis of letters dated 19-10-2004 (Annexure R-I-3) and 17-2-2005 (Annexure R-I-5) took a decision to remove the petitioners from services on account of irregularities found in the internal enquiry report dated 27-10-1998. Thus, it was not necessary to issue show cause notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as their appointments were found irregular for want of requisite qualification. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Without going into the contents of the report, it is admittedly found that the removal order which visits with civil consequences was passed without affording basic opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to put-forward their cases. 6. Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 reads as under: "7. Probation. - Every person directly recruited to the post of Shiksha Kanni shall be appointed initially on probation of three years, extendable upto five years for a particular school so that he serves in that school for full probation period. The perfonnance will be assessed by the appointing authority at the end of each year. After three years, the Shiksha Kanni may be appointed in the regular pay scale of the Panchayat on the basis of his work, conduct and performance. The perfonnance will be assessed by the appointing authority at the end of each year. After three years, the Shiksha Kanni may be appointed in the regular pay scale of the Panchayat on the basis of his work, conduct and performance. In case the performance is not found satisfactory, he may be allowed to continue on the probation for another one to two years to improve after which his performance will be assessed again at the end of extended period and if not found satisfactory, his services shall be terminated. But in no case the probationary period shall be extended beyond the maximum period of five years. Shiksha Karmi will be paid fixed pay equivalent to minimum of the pay scale with admissible dearness allowance during the probation period." There is no provision for automatic removal or dismissal without proper order. 7. It is well settled principles of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee. 8. In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & others Vs. State of Punjab & others• the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "41. If the services of the appointees who had put in few years of service were tenninated; compliance of three principles at the hands of the State was imperative, viz., to establish (I) Satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) determine the question that the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire selection process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner; (3) Whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt." "51. In those cases also tainted cases were separated from the non- . tainted cases. Only, thus, in the event it is found to be an impossible or highly improbable, en masse orders of termination could have been issued." "54. It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. tainted cases. Only, thus, in the event it is found to be an impossible or highly improbable, en masse orders of termination could have been issued." "54. It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a ratio of case must be understood having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. (SCC P.S Sathappan (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and others [(2004) 11 SCC 672], MP. Gopalkrishna Nair Vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 11 SCC 45 and Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91)" "J 28. Undoubtedly, in the selection process, there have been manipulations and irregularities at the behest of R.S. Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. On careful Scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the High Court ought to have made a serious endeavour to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. Though the task was certainly difficult, but by no stretch of imagination, it was not an impossible task." "J 29. The peculiar facts of this case which need to be highlighted are that some of the candidates have worked for about three years and their services were terminated only on the basis of criminal investigation which was at the initial stage. The termination of their services as a consequence of cancellation of selection would not only prejudice their interests seriously, but would ruin their entire future career." 9. In the case of Mohd. Sartaj and another Vs. State of UP. & other, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held in para 18 as under: "18. In Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor AU Khan this Court considered the question whether on the facts of the case the employee can invoke the principle of natural justice and whether it is a case where, even if notice has been given, result would not have been different and whether it could be said that no prejudice was caused to him, if on the admitted or proved facts grant of an opportunity would not have made any difference. The Court referred to the decisions rendered in M C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, the exceptions laid down in S1. Kapoor case and K.1. Tripathi Vs. The Court referred to the decisions rendered in M C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, the exceptions laid down in S1. Kapoor case and K.1. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India where it has been laid down that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) has to be proved. The Court has also placed reliance in the matter of State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma and Rajendra Singh Vs. State of MP. where the principle has been laid down that there must have been some real prejudice to the complainant. There is no such thing as merely technical infringement of natural justice. The Court has approved this principle and examined the case of the employee in that light. In Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. this Court has held that the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. In another recent judgment in State of U P. Vs. Neraj Awasthi while considering the argument that the principle of natural justice had been ignored before terminating the service of the employees and, therefore, the order terminating the service of the employees was bad in law, this Court has considered the principles of natural justice and the extent and the circumstances in which they are attracted. This Court has found in Neeraj Awasthi case that if the services of the workmen are governed by the U .P. Industrial Disputes Act, they are protected under that law. Rules 42 and 43 of the U .P. Industrial Disputes Rules lay down that before effecting any retrenchment the employees concerned would be entitled to notice of one month or in lieu thereof pay for one month and 15 days' wages for each completed year of service by way of compensation. If retrenchment is to be effected under the Industrial Disputes Act, the question of complying with the principles of natural justice would not arise. If retrenchment is to be effected under the Industrial Disputes Act, the question of complying with the principles of natural justice would not arise. The principles of natural justice would be attracted only when the services of some persons are terminated by way of a punitive measure or thereby a stigma is attached. Applying this principle, it could very well be Seen that discontinuation of the service of the appellants in the present case was not as a punitive measure but they were discontinued for the reason that they were not qualified and did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment." 10. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sankar Vs. Union of India & others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "26. This brings us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot .be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effccted by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be alfwed to make a representation in writing." "27. It is also, however, well settled that it cannot put any strartjacket formula. It may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise." "28. A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an Opportunity of being heard." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shrawan Kumar Jha & others Vs. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an Opportunity of being heard." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shrawan Kumar Jha & others Vs. State of Bihar & others4, wherein the appointment of teachers were cancelled without giving them an opportunity of hearing, observed as under: "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellant could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.K. Yadav Vs. J.MA. Industries Ltd., & others, considering the concept of opportunity of hearing observed as under: "The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly justly, reasonably and impartially. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, fair play in-action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be inconformity with the principles of natural justice." 13. The said principle is reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others, wherein it is held that: "The law is settled that non arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding the entire realm of State action governed by Article 14. The said principle is reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others, wherein it is held that: "The law is settled that non arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding the entire realm of State action governed by Article 14. It has come to establish, as a further corollary, that the audi altenn partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for, natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public employment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The conferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to fair,just and reasonable treatment." 14. Further, in the matter of Canara Bank & others Vs. Debasis Das & Others', the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi altenn partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity; the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is after all an approved rule of fair play and one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others, held as under: "22. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. (SCC Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Sumitra Dash). The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. (SCC Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Sumitra Dash). The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case (SCC State o/Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh and Karnataka SRTC Vs. S.G. Kotturappa)". 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Manipur & others Vs. Y. Token Singh & others held as under: "22. The respondents, therefore, in our opinion, were not entitled to hold the posts. In case of this nature, where the facts are admitted, the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when the same would result in futility. It is true that where appointments had been made by a competent authority or at least some steps have been taken in that behalf, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, in view of the decisions of this Court in Murugayya Udayar." The aforesaid citations were referred and followed by this Court in the matter of Ku. Punam and others Vs. State of CG. & others. 17. It is well settled that the purpose of rules of natural justice is not to administer justice alone but to prevent miscarriage of justice and the principles of natural justice are applicable to the administrative order, if such order affects right of a citizen. 18. In the matter of Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation and anothers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "28. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is evident that termination of services of the appellant purporting to discharge him simpliciter cannot be accepted, being stigmatic in nature. The form of the order terminating the services coupled with the background facts clearly leads to the conclusion that the order impugned in the writ petition by the appellant was punitive." 19. In the matter of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar12, the Hon 'ble the Supreme Court observed as under: "16. The respondent was appointed on a temporary basis. He was put on probation. Indisputably, the period of probation was required to be completed upon rendition of satisfactory service. In the matter of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar12, the Hon 'ble the Supreme Court observed as under: "16. The respondent was appointed on a temporary basis. He was put on probation. Indisputably, the period of probation was required to be completed upon rendition of satisfactory service. Only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation would have been held to be justified. It is, however, well known that when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance on the part of the employee but overt acts amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative. In other words, if the employee is found to have committed a misconduct, although an order terminating probation would appear to be innocuous on its face, the same would be vitiated, if in effect and substance it is found to be stigmatic in nature. " 20. Further, in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Constable Avtar Singh (dead) through LRs.13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are in total agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Punjab that the controversy involved in this case is no longerres integra. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had drawn our attention to a two Judge Bench decision of this Court in Prithipal Singh Vs. State o/Punjab. The Court held that once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order. Even where an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on a close scrutiny, by looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as stigmatic. The decision in Sukhwinder Singh was given by a three-Judge Bench and in view of that decision in 2005, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view. We are squarely bound by the said decision." 21. There is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The decision in Sukhwinder Singh was given by a three-Judge Bench and in view of that decision in 2005, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view. We are squarely bound by the said decision." 21. There is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing. 22. Applying well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners were removed from services without complying with the principles of natural justice when the petitioners have already served for more than 51/2 years. The petitioners cannot be thrown out on the ground that they did not have the requisite qualification at the time of appointment. Even if there is lack of requisite qualification, the petitioners are entitled to show cause notice to put forward their cases. 23. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed with consequential benefits flowing from this order. However liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action, if so advised, in accordance with law, following basic principles of natural justice. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.