Hon'ble JAIN, J.—In the aforesaid two writ petitions, the common questions of law and facts are involved, hence at the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the arguments were heard and both the writ petitions are being disposed of finally together. 2. The respondent No. 3 Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued an advertisement dated 24th January, 2006 inviting the applications for ANM training course from the candidates in 27 districts of the State of Rajasthan. The duration of the training was 18 months. The petitioners, who were having the requisite educational qualification, applied for admission in the ANM training course in OBC category. The petitioners could not be selected in the first and second counselling, but in view of the fact that number of vacant seats were available, therefore, they submitted a representation, which was allowed and vide order dated 24th February, 2007 (Annexure-3) issued by Directorate, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioners were selected for admission in ANM training course against vacant seats and they were directed to report to concerned Chief Medical and Health Officer. The petitioners submitted their joining report and the Chief Medical and Health Officer passed necessary order admitting the petitioners for the above training course vide order dated 6th March, 2007. All of a sudden, after completion of training for more than 7 months, the District Reproductive and Child Health Officer- respondent No. 5 issued an order dated 18th October, 2007 (Annexure-8) cancelling the admission of the petitioners with immediate effect. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present writ petitioners have said order, the present writ petitions have been preferred. 3. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed their reply to writ petition, wherein it is contended that petitioners could not be selected in first and second counselling; petitioner No.2 (Mahesh Kumari in writ petition No.9548/2007) was less meritorious at the centre and petitioners No.1 and 3 Saroj Kumari and Sharmila in writ petition No.9548/2007 did not apply for admission at centre, but some seats re-mained vacant due to non-joining of the selected candidates, therefore, as per instructions received from Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, the petitioners were given admission. It is contended that as per knowledge of respondent No. 5, some higher meritorious candidates were available in the waiting list and the correct fact was put in the knowledge of higher authorities and as per communication communicated by the office of Directorate of respondent No.5 on telephone, the admission of the petitioners was cancelled. The similar reply has also been filed in writ petition No. 9547/2007. 4. It is relevant to mention that while issuing the notice to show cause of the writ petition to respondents, this Court vide order dated 16th November, 2007 passed interim stay order permitting the petitioners to continue A.N.M. Training and as such they have completed the entire course of 18 months and now they have moved an application dated 25th April, 2009 directing the respondents to declare their result. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that impugned order (Annexure 8) dated 18th October, 2007 has been passed without any notice to petitioners and without assigning any reason whatsoever. Further that order giving admission to the petitioners for A.N.M. training course was passed by Additional Director (Training), whereas impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 5 - District Reproductive and Child Health Officer, who was not competent to pass the order, therefore, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order (Annexure-8) and contended that petitioners No. 1 and 3 in writ petition No. 9548/2007 namely Saroj Kumari and Sharmila did not apply for admission at centre and petitioner No. 2 was less meritorious at the centre, therefore, their admission was rightly cancelled by respondent No. 5. So far as petitioners in writ petition No. 9547/2007 is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the State is that petitioners were less meritorious, therefore, their admission has been cancelled. However, he does not dispute that no notice was given to petitioners before cancelling their admission vide order dated Annexure-8 and no reason has been assigned in the said order for cancelling the admission of the petitioners. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. However, he does not dispute that no notice was given to petitioners before cancelling their admission vide order dated Annexure-8 and no reason has been assigned in the said order for cancelling the admission of the petitioners. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioners could not be selected in first and second counselling, but there were vacant seats due to non-joining of number of selected candidates, therefore, they made a representation before respondent No. 3, which was allowed and respondent No. 3 - Additional Director selected the petitioners and directed them to give their joining report to concerned Chief Medical and Health Officer vide order dated 24th February, 2007 and in response thereto, they all submitted their joining report and Chief Medical and Health Officer passed necessary orders admitting the petitioners for ANM training course vide order dated 6th March, 2007. A perusal of order (Annexure-8) dated 18th October, 2007 clearly shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for cancelling the admission of the petitioners by respondent No. 5. It is also revealed that no notice was given to the petitioners before cancelling their admission and order has been passed in violation of principle of nature justice. It is also correct that admission order of petitioners was passed by Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, whereas admission of petitioners has been cancelled by subordinate officer i.e. District Reproductive and Child Health Officer- respondent No 5. The respondents have not filed any document to show that admission of petitioners has been cancelled on the basis of any direction issued by Directorate. What has been contended in the reply is that respondent No. 5 put certain facts to higher authorities about availability of meritorious candidates in the waiting list, it was communicated to him on telephone that admissions given to petitioners be cancelled, meaning thereby it is clear that no order in writing has been passed by Directorate cancelling the admissions of the petitioners. So far as objection raised in reply that petitioners No. 1 and 3 Saroj Kumari and Sharmila did not apply for admission at centre is concerned, it is relevant to mention that in para 5 of the writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 9548/2007, the petitioners specifically pleaded that they applied for admission and the said fact has not been denied by the respondents in their reply. For ready reference para 5 of the writ petition as well as reply thereto are reproduced as under: Writ Petition No. 9548/2007 "5. That the petitioners, who were having the requisite educational qualifications, applied for admission in the ANM training course in OBC category." Reply to the writ petition "5. That the contents of para No. 5 of the writ petition are not disputed as in conformity to the record." 9. The above pleadings of parties make it clear that the objection taken by respondents in this regard is contrary to their own pleadings and cannot sustain. After admitting the petitioners for ANM training course, they acquired right and the said right could not have been taken without affording an opportunity to them, but the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreso, no reason whatsoever has been assigned in Annexure 8 dated 18th October, 2007 for cancelling the admission of the petitioners. The order has also been passed by subordinate officer on the basis of instructions, which are not available in writing and what transpired on telephone in between respondent No. 3and 5 is not known and the same is not available on record also. 10. In view of above discussions, both the writ petitioners are allowed and impugned order dated 18th October, 2007 (Annexure 8) passed by respondent No. 5 is quashed and set-aside. The petitioners have already completed their training of 18 months of ANM course, therefore, their application to declare their result is also allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioners forthwith. 11. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 12.A copy of this order may be placed in connected writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9547/2007.