Judgment :- The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by proceedings dated 21.03.1990 of the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector and he joined in the Dharmapuri Collectorate on 21.03.1990. On 26.03.1990, he received a telegram that his sister died, therefore, he intimated the same to the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector on the same day i.e., 26.03.1990 by a telegram seeking leave and proceeded to Krishnagiri. When he reported back for duty, he was informed that persons appointed along with him were already ousted for want of vacancy and as such there was no vacancy to take him back in service. Subsequently, an order dated 26.03.1990 was also passed to that effect. According to the petitioner, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 433, P & AR Department dated 14.02.1993 for conducting special qualifying exam by the Tamil Nadu Public Service commission to all the temporary Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno Typists, who were recruitted through employment exchange since 1986 and subsequently ousted from service and those who are appointed on or before 15.09.1991 and continued in service irrespective of the length of service put in by them. As per the orders of the Government, the Commission issued a notification inviting applications from those who were in temporary employment in Tamil Nadu Ministerial service during the period from 15.11.1990 to 24.09.1984 and from 12.05.1989 to 15.05.1991 to participate in the special qualifying test. It was stated in the said notification that even if a person put in temporary service for a single day, he can also participate in the special qualifying examination. Since the petitioner has temporarily worked from 21.03.1990 to 25.03.1990, he also submitted his application for participating in the examination vide Registration No. 004040 and he was also declared successful. Subsequently, he was appointed as Junior Assistant by proceedings dated 20.10.1997 of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial taxes, Dharmapuri and posted as Junior Assistant in Commercial Tax Office, Dharmapuri from 22.10.1997. While so, he received a Memorandum dated 13.10.1998 from the second respondent stating that he ought not to have been permitted to write the special qualifying exam as he is ineligible to participate in the said examination since he stayed away from duty on 26.03.1990 while working as Junior Assistant at Dharmapuri Collectorate and therefore, the results of Group IV services stands cancelled. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 8642 of 1998. Subsequently, the second respondent passed an order dated 23.10.1998 terminating the service of the petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect from 23.10.1998, which was challenged in O.A. No. 8721 of 1998. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 33821 & 33822 of 2006. 2. The petitioner mainly contended that pursuant to the publication made in the newspaper for participating in the special qualifying examination, he applied with the Public Service Commission. The examination was a special qualifying examination to accommodate those temporary Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno Typists, who have helped the Government during the strike period and on their successful completion of the examination, they were given the post. Therefore, when once the petitioner was permitted to participate in the examination and he was also appointed as Junior Assistant, after one year, the impugned orders were issued without any notice. 3. Heard both sides. In this case, the Commission had issued an advertisement on 27.08.1994 in Advertisement No. 18 of 1994. Based on the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for writing the special qualifying examination. The petitioner was also recommended by the then District Collector to the Commission to include him in the list as he had worked during the strike period between 21.03.1990 to 25.03.1990 and on 26.03.1990, he went on leave. In the notification issued by the Commission also, it was categorically indicated that even if a person worked for one day during the strike period, he will be eligible to appear in the special qualifying exam. Therefore, based on the application submitted by the petitioner and on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Collector, the petitioner was permitted to write the special qualifying examination. The petitioner was also declared as successful in the examination. Subsequent to the publication of the result, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by the proceedings dated 20.10.1997 of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and he joined duty on 22.10.1997. Prior to such appointment, the Public Service Commission also called upon the petitioner to produce all the documents or testimonials and the same were also produced by him. Only thereafter, the petitioner was appointed and he was working as Junior Assistant for nearly one year. Prior to such appointment, the Public Service Commission also called upon the petitioner to produce all the documents or testimonials and the same were also produced by him. Only thereafter, the petitioner was appointed and he was working as Junior Assistant for nearly one year. While so, without any prior notice, the second respondent has arbitrarily cancelled the petitioners appointment, which is unsustainable in law. In the impugned order dated 13.10.1998, it was only stated that pursuant to a clarification with the Government, it was decided that as the petitioner has stayed away from the temporary service, he forfeits the rights of a temporary government servant and therefore he is ineligible for appointment. It was also stated that therefore the petitioners result declared in the special qualifying examination is cancelled and orders of termination of services will be issued shortly. Accordingly, the order dated 23.10.1998 was issued by the Commission terminating the services of the petitioner. 4. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that the notification issued by the Commission clearly states that any person, who worked with the government for atleast one day during the strike period will be eligible to participate in the special qualifying examination. Whereas, the District Collector, Dharmapuri has clearly stated that the petitioner worked during the strike period from 20.03.1990 to 25.03.1990 and thereafter, he went on leave on the ground that his sister died. Therefore, the petitioner had a valid ground for his absence on 26.03.1990. In any event, the notification issued by the Commission clearly states that even if a person worked for one day, it is enough to make him eligible to participate in the special qualifying examination. Whereas, the petitioner had admittedly worked for five days. 5. In the counter, in Page No.9, it was stated that by letter dated 11.08.1998, the Government clarified that the persons who stayed away from duty and those who have resigned their job are not eligible to participate in the special qualifying examination. It is pertinent to point out that the notification was of the year 1994, the special qualifying examination was conducted in the year 1995, results declared and records of the petitioner were verified in the year 1997 and he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 20.10.1997. It is pertinent to point out that the notification was of the year 1994, the special qualifying examination was conducted in the year 1995, results declared and records of the petitioner were verified in the year 1997 and he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 20.10.1997. But, the Commission appears to have obtained a clarification from the Government only in the year 1998 regarding the eligibility of those persons who have attended the examination and pursuant to such clarification, the impugned orders were passed terminating the petitioner from service. It is not known how the Government can set aside the very selection process conducted in the year 1994 and impose some other conditions, after four years, at the stroke of a pen by means of a subsequent clarification. Even if such clarification is given, principles of natural justice requires that the petitioner, who was in service for more than one year, ought to have been given a notice calling for his explanation as to why his appointment should not be cancelled. Only after issuing such notice, the second respondent ought to have passed the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent without notice are per se illegal. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in continuous service. The said submission is recorded. 7. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.