JUDGMENT By Court: The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the order dated 20.04.2005 passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar as a Class IV employee (Peon). Since 1989, the petitioner was officiating on the post of Routine Clerk. On a representation made on 21.08.2003 by the petitioner to the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand, interdepartmental correspondence took place and it was found that there were five vacancies of Clerk of Class III posts and such posts were State Cadre posts. The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand issued order dated 04.11.2003 for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant and the petitioner joined the said post on 22.11.2003. Order dated 04.11.2003 clearly indicates that the petitioner has been granted promotion in terms of Resolution No. 2215 dated 11.02.1985. Subsequently, the petitioner was sent on deputation on 28.11.2003 to the office of Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner was granted increment while discharging his duty on the post of Clerk. However, the promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Clerk was cancelled by order dated 20.04.2005 issued by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondent State of Jharkhand taking a plea that the promotion given to the petitioner on the Class III post was in violation of Clause 7.2 of Resolution No. 2215 dated 11.02.1985. 4. Heard counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the contention that the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The learned counsel has further submitted that the order of promotion dated 04.11.2003 was passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand and therefore, the Secretary of the Department cannot review/ recall or cancel the said order of promotion. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualification and he worked for almost 23 years on Class IV post and the conditions contained in Resolution No. 2215 dated 11.02.1985 has not been violated at all while promoting the petitioner to a Class III post. The petitioner possesses the requisite qualification and he worked for almost 23 years on Class IV post and the conditions contained in Resolution No. 2215 dated 11.02.1985 has not been violated at all while promoting the petitioner to a Class III post. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 does not require interference by this Court. 7. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 and since 1989, he has been working on the post of Routine Clerk in officiating capacity. The petitioner has the requisite qualification for appointment to a Class III post. The cancellation of order of promotion dated 04.11.2003 has reduced the petitioner in rank. Without conducting a departmental enquiry and without issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner, the promotion given to the petitioner could not have been cancelled. The procedure adopted by the Respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in law. I am also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Secretary of the Department would have no power to cancel the order passed by another Secretary of the Department. This is not the case of the Respondents that the Secretary, Cooperative Department, on realising some mistake committed by him/her, has recalled the earlier order passed by him/her. 8. The impugned order dated 20.04.2005 is liable to be interfered with for another reason, that is, for violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has not been issued any show-cause notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing either before or after the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 has been passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Department. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 20.04.2005 is hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to restore order dated 04.11.2003, whereby the petitioner was promoted, however, there shall be no order for any consequential monetary benefit to the petitioner.