JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.:-The petitioner was engaged as a Beldar by the respondent-Board in the year 1968. He was promoted to the post of ‘T’ Mate on work charge basis on 26. 5.1970. He joined his duties on 1.6.1970. He was promoted from the post of ‘T’ Mate to the post of Assistant Lineman vide order dated 17.9.1979. He was posted at Electrical Sub-Division, Nalagarh under Electrical Circle, Solan. He was transferred from Electrical Division Nalagarh to Electrical Sub Division Subathu under Electrical Division, Arki. He joined his duties on 13.10.1992. He was further promoted to the post of Lineman on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 27.5.1987. He submitted his joining report on 10.6.1987. His pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 480-880 w.e.f. 10.6.1987. The petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 on 21.5.1993 that he has been assigned seniority wrongly and accordingly he could not be promoted to the post of Lineman on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee made on 27.5.1987. The promotion orders issued in favour of the petitioner on 28.5.1987 were withdrawn vide Annexure-A5 dated 15.10.1993. He filed an Original Application bearing No. 2174 of 1994 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Administrative Tribunal directed the petition to be treated as representation to the Secretary of the respondent-Board on 29.3.1994. The same was rejected by the Secretary vide Annexure A-9. 2. Mr. R.S. Guatam, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-5 dated 15.10.1993. His further case is that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Lineman by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 27.5.1987 strictly in conformity with Annexure A-8. He then contended that the amendment carried in the Rules notified on 17.3.1986 could not be given retrospective effect. In other words, his submission is that the rights which have accrued to the petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-8 could not be taken away by applying the corrigendum dated 1.9.1987 retrospectively. 3. Ms. Anjula Khajura, Advocate has supported the issuance of Annexures A-5 and A-10 respectively. According to her, the petitioner had been assigned wrong seniority. Her further submission is that the seniority of divisional level was to be taken into consideration. 4. 3. Ms. Anjula Khajura, Advocate has supported the issuance of Annexures A-5 and A-10 respectively. According to her, the petitioner had been assigned wrong seniority. Her further submission is that the seniority of divisional level was to be taken into consideration. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. The petitioner was considered by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee on 27.5.1987. He was promoted on 28.5.1987 to the post of Lineman. It was done as per Annexure A-8 dated 17.3.1986. It is evident from these rules that the seniority for promotion to the post of Lineman was to be considered at the circle level. However, the words ‘circle level’ were substituted by the words ‘divisional level’ vide corrigendum dated 1.9.1987. The corrigendum dated 1.9.1987 could not be applied retrospectively to destroy the rights which the petitioner had acquired under Annexure A-8 dated 17.3.1986. It is settled law that the accrued/vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively. 6. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. The petitioner, as observed above, was promoted by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee on 27.5.1987 on the basis of the seniority assigned to him. The Superintendent Engineer has informed him that the seniority list was not properly drawn vide communication dated Annexure A-4 dated 21.5.1993. He was informed that the promotion orders would be withdrawn and the review Departmental Promotion Committee was to be convened. The promotion orders were in fact withdrawn on 15.10.1993 after holding the review Departmental Promotion Committee on 11.10.1993. The petitioner ought to have been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-5. The decision has already been taken by the Board to withdraw the promotion orders as is evident from Annexure A-4. It was a case where the petitioner was visited with civil consequences and was required to be afforded pre-decisional hearing instead of post-decisional hearing. The order dated 15.10.1993 is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the decision of the respondent-board to apply the corrigendum dated 1.9.1987 with effect from 17.3.1986 is declared ultra vires. The respondent-Board could not apply the corrigendum Annexure RA-II retrospectively once the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Lineman on the basis of Annexure A-8 dated 17.3.1986. The promotion orders could not be withdrawn without giving pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner. The respondent-Board could not apply the corrigendum Annexure RA-II retrospectively once the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Lineman on the basis of Annexure A-8 dated 17.3.1986. The promotion orders could not be withdrawn without giving pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner. The Secretary has over looked these aspects of the matter while deciding the representation as directed by the learned Tribunal on 29.3.1994. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-5 dated 15.10.1993 and Annexure A-10 dated 28.7.1994 are quashed and set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.