JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition having been restored to its original number, learned counsel for the parties requested to hear the matter finally and decide it. Hence, I proceed accordingly. 2. Heard Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri D.N. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. An advertisement No. 454/Backlog Appointment 2007-08 was published in daily newspapers for two vacancies of ‘Swachhak-cum-Chowkidar’ in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-5200/- by the office of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Adhikari, Rampur. In pursuance to the aforesaid vacancies petitioner applied and selected on the said post. The appointment letter was issued to petitioner on 6.11.2007. Thereafter, Director Ayurvedic and Unani Sewa, U.P. Luknow made some inquiry in respect of aforesaid appointments and found that several irregularities and illegalities were committed by Selection Committee in making appointments, therefore, aforesaid backlog appointments were cancelled. Pursuant thereto impugned order was passed on 31.12.2007 by respondent No. 2 cancelling appointment of petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that Selection Committee was duly constituted consisting of four members as contemplated under Rules. Interviews were held and thereafter petitioner was selected and appointed. Having worked for sometime, without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, impugned order has been passed and the same is liable to be quashed being in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 sworn by Dr. Satyavir Singh Saini, Medical Officer, Rajkiya Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, Milak, District Rampur. It is admitted therein that in pursuance to the Government Order dated 22.5.2007 as well as order dated 6.8.2007 issued by Director of the Department, the recruitment process was initiated by respondent No. 2, which was to be completed till 31.10.2007. Thereafter, for the said purpose a selection committee was constituted and an advertisement was issued in daily newspapers Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran and Rampur Ka Elan (Urdu). The same was also pasted on the Notice Board of the office. It was also notified to the Employment Exchange. In pursuance to above, 50 applications were received. Similarly list of 12 persons sent by Employment Office. Out of total 62 applications, 13 were short listed and remaining 49 called for interview. In the aforesaid selection, petitioner and one Shri Jai Prakash were selected and ultimately petitioner was appointed. It was also notified to the Employment Exchange. In pursuance to above, 50 applications were received. Similarly list of 12 persons sent by Employment Office. Out of total 62 applications, 13 were short listed and remaining 49 called for interview. In the aforesaid selection, petitioner and one Shri Jai Prakash were selected and ultimately petitioner was appointed. Subsequently, some complaints received in respect to above selection as a result thereof an inquiry was conducted and the selection was cancelled on 26.12.2007 vide an order passed by Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Sewa, U.P. Lucknow and subsequently petitioner was removed from service by order dated 31.12.2007. 6. In the entire counter-affidavit the only thing mentioned for cancelling appointment of petitioner is “certain great irregularities committed by Selection Committee in the aforesaid selection”, but there is not even a whisper about what kind of irregularities and illegalities were committed in the above selection. Paragraph Nos. 3,5,6 and 7 of counter-affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow : “3. That the contents of paragraph 1 to 6 of the writ petition are matters of record and can be verified from the same. However, it is stated that pursuant to the Govt. Order dated 22.5.2007 as well as order dated 6.8.2007 issued by the Director of the Deptt. in pursuance thereof, the recruitment/selection process was to be completed till 31.10.2007 and for the said purpose a selection committee was constituted and an advertisement in this regard was published in daily newspapers, Amar Ujala, Diaink Jagran and Rampur Ka Elan (Urdu) and the same was also pasted on the notice board of the office and it was also applications were received and similarly names/list of 12 persons were sent by the Employment Office and out of total 62 applications, 13 applications were short listed and remaining 49 applicants were called for interview. It is further stated that on 30.10.2007 the interview of candidates were taken by the duly constituted selection and in the said selection the petitioner and one Shri Jai Prakash S/o Shri Ganaga Ram (waiting list), were selected and after due selection vide letter dated 31.10.2007, permission of Director Ayurvedic and Unani Service was sought and thereafter, appointment letters were issued on 6.11.2007. In the meantime, certain complaints were received regarding irregularities committed in the said selection which was got enquired and after due enquiry, the selection of the candidates were cancelled on 26.12.2007 by means of an order passed by the Director of the Deptt. and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner was also removed from service on 31.12.2007, against which the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 5. That the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition are not admitted and in reply it is stated that regarding selection/appointment in question, certain complaints were received in the Deptt. which was got enquired and during the enquiry, it was revealed that certain irregularities were committeed in the said selection/appointment an as such the aforesaid selection/appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in accordance with law. 6. That the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not admitted. After conducting a detailed enquiry regarding the matter in dispute, it has been found that in the selection in question great irregularities have been committed and as such the selection/appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in accordance with law. 7. That the contents of paragraphs 10 to16 of the writ petition are not admitted and in reply it is stated that regarding selection in question, certain complaints were received in the Deptt. which was enquired thoroughly and after enquiry when it has been fond that relevant Rules as well as Govt. Orders were ignored in the said selection and the selection/appointment of the petitioner being illegal was cancelled by the Director of the Deptt. for which he is fully authorised. The impugned order is perfectly just and legal and there is no illegality in it.” 7. Learned Standing Counsel despite repeated query could not tell any irregularity or nature thereof alleged by Selection Committee in making appointment of petitioner. Since nothing has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit, this is really a sorry state of affair that a person who has filed counter-affidavit has chosen not to take this Court into confidence by disclosing the nature of alleged irregularities in selection warranting cancellation thereof. On the one hand process of selection has been explained in detail but reason of cancellation has not been clearly mentioned. The reply is vague and evasive. On the one hand process of selection has been explained in detail but reason of cancellation has not been clearly mentioned. The reply is vague and evasive. In absence of any reason given by the authority concerned in the impugned order or in the counter-affidavit, in my view, it cannot be said that any irregularity has been committed in selection of petitioner. 8. The petitioner has been kept unemployed by respondents passing illegal order for which they have failed to place proper defence in the counter-affidavit. This result in vitiating the impugned orders. 9. This Court is of considered view that dismissal of petitioner from service having been found wholly illegal, and it is also having been seen that he was denied work on the post in question by employer in a wholly illegal manner, petitioner should be given relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. This would be in consonance with the principle that an employee has ‘no right to work’ but only right to claim salary. In absence of anything to show that employee himself was unwilling to work, principle of “No Work No Pay’ ought not to be applied in such a case. Such a principle in a case like this, if applied would amount to confer a premium upon employer to enjoy benefit of a fault of his own. This would amount to allowing him (employer) to take advantage of his own wrong, which is not permissible in law particularly in a Court of equity and justice. It is against all canons of justice. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.12.2007 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 11. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 20,000/- . The liberty however is given to the respondent No. 3 that the amount in question may be recovered from the official (s) concerned, who is responsible for such laxity after making necessary inquiry in the matter. 12. However, this order shall not preclude the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. ————