Yaooob, J.:-- By common judgement dated 14.7.2008, two writ petitions i.e. SWP No. 757/2004 titled Rehana Yousuf Vs. State & ors and SWP No. 1214/2004 titled Mst. Shamina Sharief & anr Vs. State & ors, have been allowed setting aside the cancellation of orders of appointment for having been passed without notice to the writ petitioners(respondents herein) (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) with liberty to the appellants herein(respondents in the writ petitions) to proceed in the matter in accordance with rules. Aggrieved thereof, instant two appeals have been filed. 2. To notice admitted concise factual matrix, as emerge from the respective pleadings of the parties, shall be advantageous for proper adjudication of the lis: (I) The writ petitioners and one Miss Tanveer Bano have been appointed as Class IV (Typist) in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 vide order Nos. CE/S&O/193 of 2002 and CE/S&O/194 of 2002, both dated 01.08.2002, for a period of 89 days which orders have not been placed on record but are referred to in another order bearing No. CE/S&O/259 of 2002 dated 29.10.2002 issued by appellant Chief Engineer. Said order reads as under:- "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR SYSTEM & OPERATION WING PDD BEMINA SRINAGAR Subject: Appointment as Class IV Order No. CE/S&O/259 of 2002 Dated:29-10-2002 The following persons appointed as Class IV (typists) in the pay scale of (2550-3200) vide this office Order No. CE/S&O/193 and 194 of 2002 dated 1.8.2002 for a period of 89 days will temporarily continue purely in the interest of Government work. 1. Miss Shamina Sharief. 2. Miss Raihana Yousuf. 3. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad. 4. Miss Tanveer Bano. Sd/ (Muzaffar A. Butt) Chief Engineer." (II) Subsequently the writ petitioners are stated to have been promoted as Junior Assistants but no such order has been brought on record by either side neither same has been denied by the appellants in the counter affidavit as filed before the writ court. (III) Appellant Chief Engineer in his counter affidavit, as filed before the Writ Court has stated that he was not aware nor was it brought to his notice that the power of making appointments against Class IV posts as was vested with the Head of the Departments has been withdrawn by the Government vide Govt. Order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.6.1999. The position of said Govt. Order has been reiterated in Circular No. 35-GAD of 2002 dated 24.12.2002. Order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.6.1999. The position of said Govt. Order has been reiterated in Circular No. 35-GAD of 2002 dated 24.12.2002. He has further stated that the appointment of the writ petitioners was made in ignorance of the said orders under bone fide belief, it is on the inspection by Hon’ble Minister of State for Power, J&K Govt. On 29.2.2004, it was pointed out and the issue was examined by the Government, as a result thereof, vide Govt. Order No. 109-PDD of 2004 dated 06.04.2004, the said appointments were cancelled. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that upon detection of the bona fide mistake, the deponent (Chief Engineer) at his own level cancelled the said engagement orders as the orders had no legal consequence as having been issued without competence, illegality, as such, has been undone. The appointments were not validly made, therefore, no right is created in favour of the appointees. (IV) The said two orders cancelling and rescinding the orders of appointment favouring the writ petitions bearing Govt. No. 109-PDD of 2004 dated 6.4.2004, issued by Special Secretary to Govt. PDD and order No. CE/S&O/272 of 2004 dated 10.3.2004, issued by Chief Engineer, were sought to be quashed in both the writ petitions. 3. The writ petitioners, admittedly, have been initially engaged for a period of 89 days and subsequently allowed to continue in terms of order as referred above. The engagement/appointment of the writ petitioners was not outcome of any selection process, furthermore, is stated to have been made against non-existent posts. 4. Vide Government order No. 1786-GAD of 1997 dated 11.11.1997, recruitment to Class-IV posts in different departments of the Government was directed to be made by the concerned Head of the Department in accordance with rules and procedure. Then pursuant to Government order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.06.1999, the powers as were vested with the Heads of Departments in pursuance to Government order No. 1786-GAD of 1997 dated 11.11.1997, have been withdrawn. Subsequently Government has issued Circular No. 35-GAD of 2002 dated 24.12.2002, wherein position of the above referred two government orders of 1997 and 1999 have been referred to and thereafter it has been mentioned that no Class-IV appointment shall be made by any department or office of the Government except in respect of beneficiaries of SRO 43. Subsequently Government has issued Circular No. 35-GAD of 2002 dated 24.12.2002, wherein position of the above referred two government orders of 1997 and 1999 have been referred to and thereafter it has been mentioned that no Class-IV appointment shall be made by any department or office of the Government except in respect of beneficiaries of SRO 43. All Class-IV posts were directed to be referred to the respective Deputy Commissioners so that the candidates on the waiting lists of SRO 43 of 1994 available with them are given jobs in accordance with rules. 5. The aforesaid two government orders dated 11.11.1997, 14.6.199 and circular dated 24.12.2002 would clearly show that the Chief Engineer had no power to make any appointment as against Class-IV posts, therefore, the orders of appointment in favour of the writ petitioners were admittedly issued by an incompetent authority. 6. The writ petitioners in their pleadings before the Writ Court had firstly pleaded that as per Chapter II of Book of Financial Powers, Chief Engineer is a Class I officer so a Major Head of the Department, therefore, he was competent to make appointment against Class-IV posts and secondly before rescinding/cancelling appointment orders of the writ petitioners, no notice was served upon them, therefore, principles of natural justice are violated. The appointment of the writ petitioners if treated to be temporary, then their services were to be governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961. In accordance with rule 5(1) of the said Rules, before terminating services of a temporary employee, it was incumbent upon the government to issue notice in writing to the writ petitioners which has not been done, therefore, cancellation orders are illegal. In case of writ petitioner Rehana Yousuf, it had also been projected that her appointment was made in terms of SRO 43 i.e. on compassionate basis as her brother had lost life in a grenade attack in Lal Chowk Anantnag on 17.9.2002. 7. The appellants before the Writ Court in the counter affidavit have projected that the appointments have been made by an officer without powers, appointments so made are backdoor appointments as the writ petitioners have not been appointed on the basis of any selection process. So for all practical purposes appointments are illegal, for cancellation of which notice is not required to be served. So for all practical purposes appointments are illegal, for cancellation of which notice is not required to be served. Order No. 109-PDD of 2004 dated 06.04.2004 rescinding appointment of the writ petitioners has been implemented, so the writ petitioners are not on the establishment from the year 2004. The appellant Chief Engineer in his counter affidavit has specifically stated that the writ petitioner Rehana was not appointed on compassionate basis under SRO 43, the writ petitioners have been appointed against non­existent posts. 8. In the rejoinder as filed by the writ petitioners it has been projected that a similarly situated candidate, namely, Bashir Ahmad has been appointed, thereafter promoted to the post of Junior Assistant by same Chief Engineer (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) vide order No. 170 of 2003 dated 31.10.2003. The said contention is repelled as his promotion has been cancelled vide Govt. order No. 110-PDD of 2004 dated 06.04.2004 and he has been reverted to his original post of Orderly. 9. This position has been clarified by the appellants by stating that the said Bashir Ahmad Mir was working as an Orderly, he was promoted but his promotion order was revoked as having been made without approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee. So his position cannot be said to be similar to the position of writ petitioners. Even otherwise writ petitioners cannot claim right unless same exist legally in their favour. 10. Learned Single Judge has not adverted to the rival contentions/grounds as projected in the respective pleadings by the parties but instead while relying on two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court captioned Shrawan Kumar Jha & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors ( AIR 1991 SC 309 ) and Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & Ors ( AIR 1998 SC 3261 ), has concluded that the impugned orders providing for cancellation and rescinding of appointments favouring petitioners, being without notice, cannot sustain and it is in the said backdrop appellants(respondents therein) have been directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with rules. 11. The star question which emerges for consideration is as to whether principles of natural justice were required to be followed or not in view of the admitted facts of the present case. Similar question has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case captioned Mohinder Singh & ors Vs. 11. The star question which emerges for consideration is as to whether principles of natural justice were required to be followed or not in view of the admitted facts of the present case. Similar question has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case captioned Mohinder Singh & ors Vs. State of J&.K & Ors.(2000 S.L.J 199). In the reported judgment, appointments were made to Class-IV posts without advertising the same, which later on were cancelled by the Government without providing an opportunity to the appointees of being heard. The Division Bench at para 13 of the judgment has ruled that when appointments are made without inviting applications, the procedure for appointment was neither just nor fair, the only exception to the rule which provides for appointment in accordance with rules and procedure is the appointment made on compassionate grounds which too has to be after considering the financial condition of the family. In support thereof, observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and ors, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 has been referred to. Para 17 of the said judgment is relevant to be quoted:- "17.We are of the opinion that this is the correct legal position. The Summit Court in "M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others" AIR 1999 SC 2583 formulated following questions for determination:- "(1) Whether this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 32 (or the High Court generally under Article 226) is bound to declare an order of Government passed in breach of principles of natural justice as void or whether the court can refuse to grant relief on the ground that the facts of the case do not justify exercise of discretion to interfere or because de facto prejudice has not been shown? (2) Whether the Court is not bound under Article 32 (or High Court under Article 226) to quash an order of Government on ground of breach of natural justice if such an action will result in the restoration of an earlier order of Government which was also passed in breach of natural justice or which was otherwise illegal?" Relying on its earlier judgment in 'Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Govt. of Andhra Padesh'. Govt. of Andhra Padesh'. 1966 (SC 828), their Lordships held as under:- "The above case is clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice. The court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its direction of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law." 12. In another judgment rendered in LPA No. 161/2005 titled Suhail Ahmad Bhat Vs. State & ors, reported in 2006(1) S. L. J. 274, it has been held that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed where the appointments are legally valid, illegal appointments do not vest or create any enforceable right in the Court of law. Then in para 8 of the judgment it has been observed that the guarantees are available to an appointee only when his appointment is legal and valid in law. In the reported judgment, while referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 803 , it has been observed that every citizen has a right to seek employment and it is possible only if the post is advertising providing opportunity to all the eligible candidates. When same is not done and appointment is made in an arbitrary manner, de hors the rules, same cannot be maintained. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the judgment as rendered by the Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case captioned Nazira Begum Lashkar & ors Vs. State of Assam & ors, reported in 2000 (10) SRJ 105, contended that the appointments of the writ petitioners were totally de hors the rules, have not been made on the basis of any selection process and in addition have been made against non-existent posts, that too by an officer who had no power to make such appointments in view of Govt. order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.6.1999 and circular No. 35-GAD of 2002 dated 24.12.2002, therefore, such illegal appointees had no right to claim opportunity of being heard vis-a­vis cancellation of their appointment orders. order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.6.1999 and circular No. 35-GAD of 2002 dated 24.12.2002, therefore, such illegal appointees had no right to claim opportunity of being heard vis-a­vis cancellation of their appointment orders. The above referred Division Bench judgment perhaps has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 14. While considering the submissions as made, what will emerge is that the learned Single Judge has relied on two judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court by holding that even if appointment is irregular and not in accordance with rules, the concerned authority has to issue formal notice to show cause to the concerned employee before terminating his service. 15. In the Basudeo Tiwary's case it has been held that "condition precedent for exercise of power is that an appointment had been made contrary to Act, Rules, Statutes and Regulations or otherwise". The facts of the said reported case are different because in the instant case position is admitted, needs no further elaboration i.e. Chief Engineer in accordance with Govt. Order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.06.1999 had no power to make appointment and it is also admitted that no selection process was initiated, the appointment was totally on pick and choose basis, that too against non-existent posts. Furthermore, the writ petitioners are not on the establishment with effect from the date of cancellation of their appointment orders i.e. from the year 2004. The law laid down by three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2000(10) SRJ 105 applies to the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said reported judgment while referring to the Ashwani Kumar's case ( 1997(2) SCC 1 ), has recorded as under:- "In Ashwani Kumar's case, 1997(2) S.C.C. 1 , this Court in no uncertain terms held that as the appointments had been made illegally and contrary to all recognised recruitment procedures and were highly arbitrary, the same were not binding on the State of Bihar. This Court further went on to hold in the aforesaid case that the initial appointments having been made contrary to the statutory rules, the continuance of such appointees must be held to be totally unauthorised and no right would accrue to the incumbent on that score. This Court further went on to hold in the aforesaid case that the initial appointments having been made contrary to the statutory rules, the continuance of such appointees must be held to be totally unauthorised and no right would accrue to the incumbent on that score. The Court had also held that it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were violated or full opportunity was not given to the employees concerned to have their say in the matter before their appointments were recalled and terminated. 16. It shall be quite appropriate to quite para 22 of the judgment captioned Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman J&K Bank Ltd. & ors, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337 : "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. [See 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. {See State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. S.G. Koturappa}". 17. The concept of principles of natural justice has a benign object of affording an opportunity to the aggrieved party against whom order is made to show cause or to justify his position. In the present case when facts and circumstances are admitted, would chance of hearing to the aggrieved party change the course of things. The concept of principles of natural justice is not a straightjacket formula to be applied in a case where by applying, position will not change. When position of the writ petitioners is admitted and their pleadings are clear, will it not be an empty formula to ask them to come and justify their appointment which they cannot. The appointment of the writ petitioners is, admittedly, absolutely de hors the rules, their appointment is on pick and choose basis, purely a backdoor appointment as they have been initially engaged for a period of 89 days and subsequently allowed to continue indefinitely by the appellant Chief Engineer who, firstly, had no power to make appointment and secondly had not advertised the posts. The said process of engagement is totally illegal. Had it been irregular, there could be a question of giving an opportunity so that the matter could be considered on humanitarian grounds but that position too is not available which fact is also admitted by said appellant Chief Engineer in the counter affidavit stating therein that he had acted in good faith as he was not aware about Govt. Order No. 683-GAD of 1999, in pursuance whereof he had no power to make appointment and in addition had stated that the appointment of writ petitioner Rehana was not made on compassionate basis. His such statement is also supported by the averment contained in the writ petition filed by said Rehana Yousuf wherein she has alleged that she was engaged as a casual labour in the month of January, 2002 and continue to work as such up to 31st July, 2002 and thereafter appointed for a period of 89 days on compassionate grounds. Her brother was killed in the month of September, 2002. She claims to have been engaged initially as a casual labour in the month of January, 2002 when her brother was not killed. To claim compassionate appointment is totally misplaced because compassionate appointment is made in accordance with SRO 43 which does not appear to have been done. More so, the Chief Engineer in his counter affidavit has, in specific terms, stated that the appointment order in favour of the said writ petitioner (Rehana) was not made on compassionate basis. 18. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion leads us to only one conclusion i.e. in view of admitted facts and circumstances of the case there was no requirement of adhering to the principle "audi alteram partem". Illegal orders, as have been undone, could not by any means be validated, so result could not be changed by giving any hearing to the writ petitioners-appointees. 19. The order under appeal, passed by learned Single Judge, for the afore-stated reasons and circumstances is unsustainable, as such, set aside. Resultantly, writ petitions (SWP No. 757/2004 and SWP No. 1214/2004) are dismissed. No order as to costs. Dismissal of the writ petition of Mst. Rehana will not stand in her way in claiming compassionate appointment in accordance with SRO 43 of 1994 in view of death of her brother. Resultantly, writ petitions (SWP No. 757/2004 and SWP No. 1214/2004) are dismissed. No order as to costs. Dismissal of the writ petition of Mst. Rehana will not stand in her way in claiming compassionate appointment in accordance with SRO 43 of 1994 in view of death of her brother. In case under SRO 43 she is found eligible for compassionate appointment, the age relaxation shall also be considered.