JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, CJ.- This is an appeal under Rule 2 of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, by the respondents of WP(C) No.1261 of 2001. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and while quashing the order impugned in the writ petition described as (movement order) (which according to the writ petitioner had the effect of his termination from the service) directed that writ petitioner be reinstated in service and be paid all arrears and pay etc. 3. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: "20. For the reasons discussed above, it is crystal clear that the impugned movement order was issued in clear violation of the principle of natural justice, i.e. (i) Non mentioning of reasons for invalidating the petitioner out of service in the impugned movement order dated 2.6.2001 (ii) No notice or opportunity of being heard was available to the petitioner before issuing the impugned movement order dated 2.6.2001 and (iii) the reasons for issuing the impugned movement order dated 2.6.2001 cannot be supplemented by the fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 21. Having regard to the fact of the case discussed above, and also the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, this Court is of the considered view, that the impugned movement order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned movement order is hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner should be reinstated in service forthwith." 4. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and passed the aforementioned writ in writ petitioner’s favour for its compliance. 5. Facts of the case are; The writ petitioner (respondent herein) appeared for the selection of a post called - Nursing Assistant advertised by the Army Medical Corps conducted by the authorities of the 17th Battalion Assam Rifles, Kangla Imphal (appellant herein). The writ petitioner was selected and was asked to clear one medical test which as per rules was required before he was given the appointment. In this medical test, he was declared fit on 3.3.2001 (Annexure-A-1). Since in terms of the procedure prescribed for undergoing second medical examination, it was also necessary for the writ petitioner to have undergone second medical test. In this medical test, he was declared fit on 3.3.2001 (Annexure-A-1). Since in terms of the procedure prescribed for undergoing second medical examination, it was also necessary for the writ petitioner to have undergone second medical test. He was, therefore, asked to undergo second medical examination before the Medical Board. 6. On 21.3.2001, the writ petitioner appeared before the Medical board along with several other candidates. The Medical Board however noticed that writ petitioner was suffering from "Pilonidial Sinus with Pilonidial Cyst". The Medical Board therefore declared the writ petitioner unfit for the post in question. It is due to this reason, the impugned movement order dt. 2.6.2001 was passed against the writ petitioner by giving him the return railway tickets as per rules to enable him to go back to his destination. The writ petitioner became aggrieved of this order and hence filed the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arise. 7. The challenge before the writ court to the impugned order was that firstly it was passed without affording to the writ petitioner any opportunity of being heard: secondly no reasons were assigned for issuance of the impugned order: thirdly no inquiry was held prior to passing of the impugned order and lastly principal of natural justice were not followed prior to passing of the impugned order. 8. The appellant defended the impugned order contending that there was no appointment given to the writ petitioner as it was subject to his clearing all the medical tests as per rules. It was contended that since in terms of the rules, he had to undergo second medical test in which he was found suffering with an ailment called "Pilonidial Sinus with Pilonidal Cyst" and hence he was not given appointment. It was thus contended that in a case of this nature, where the candidate was not appointed, and nor was he holding such post, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India were not attracted. 9. The writ court however found substance in the submissions urged by the writ petitioner and hence while allowing the writ petition quashed the impugned movement order and issued the aforementioned directions against the respondents for compliance which has given rise to filing of this appeal. The appeal was admitted for final hearing and during its pendency, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. 10. Heard Mr. The appeal was admitted for final hearing and during its pendency, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. 10. Heard Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC appearing for the appellants and none for respondent despite notice served on him. Having heard the learned counsel for appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while quashing the order of the writ court dismiss the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. 11. Rules which are relevant for disposal of this appeal need mention infra: "RECRUITING MEDICAL PROCEDURES :ZROs MODIFICATION 1. Changes as under have been made in the second medical examination procedures for candidates recruited through ZROz/BPO; UHQ quota: (a) Candidates recruited through UHQ quota will be subjected to a second medical examination at the authorised hospital. Centres will liaise with the Commandants/ CO’s hospital for the necessary arrangements. Candidates found fit/unfit will be dealt with in accordance with the procedure so far followed for ZRO/BRO recruited candidates second medical examination. ZRO/BRO recruited recruits will continue to undergo a second medical examination as hither to. (b) Status of recruits found unfit at second Medical examination. It has been clarified by the RTG Dte that the personnel being subjected to the second medical examination are recruits. They will thus be treated as Recruits and not judged by standards for fresh Recruitment. Thus recruits with, correctible disabilities like hydrocele etc will be referred to the authorised hospitals for treatment and retained in services in accordance with the stipulation of MT 3 letter No. A/203/ 4/MR-3 dated 20 Feb 86 (photocopy attached). All concerned and in particularly Sr. Advisers in all specialities may be advised to ensure action on the subject. Present practice of declaring recruits unfit for treatable diseases forthwith." MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF RECRUITS "1. There has been an increase in the No. of cases initially declared Med Fit by Rect. MOs being subsequently declared unfit the mandatory second medical examination at the Regimental Cen. Similarly there is an increase in the no. of cases where two specialists in the same speciality have given contradictory opinions same recruit. 1. Once declared unfit such recruits expected to be released invalided/discharged from services. Prior to such actions clearance of DGMS-5A is required to be taken vide Rtg Dte letter No.A/Rtd.5 (DR)(A) dated 25 Aug 89. 2. Similarly there is an increase in the no. of cases where two specialists in the same speciality have given contradictory opinions same recruit. 1. Once declared unfit such recruits expected to be released invalided/discharged from services. Prior to such actions clearance of DGMS-5A is required to be taken vide Rtg Dte letter No.A/Rtd.5 (DR)(A) dated 25 Aug 89. 2. In view of the differing opinions of concerned specialist cases are being presently refd to concerned Senior Advisers to uniformity of decisions. Present procedure is tedious as it is a (sic) which in turn advises the Centre to have the examined by the authorised Sr. Adv Opinions are then again to DGMS-5A for the final decision. 3. Existing procedures are being streamlined. Henceforth if found unfit at a second medical examination at the Centre will directly referred to the authorised Sr. Adv in the speciality. Final opinion as obtained will be sent to DGMS-5A for further. 4. This may kindly be disseminated to all concerned under jurisdiction." 12. It is in compliance to this rule which provides for second medical tests for every candidate, the writ petitioner was asked to undergo second medical test which he underwent before the Medical Board on 21.3.2001 and was not found fit by the Medical Board because it was noticed that he was suffering from an ailment called "Pilonidial Sinus with Pilonidal Cyst". One cannot perhaps dispute this legal position that appointment of any person comes into be (sic) only after he clears all the requirements prescribed in the Rule for such appointment. So long as therefore the candidate does not clear all the necessary requirements prescribed for securing the appointment, he has no right to hold such post. In other words, unless an appointment order is issued and the person concerned joins the post after ensuring compliance of all requirements, the question of his holding such post does not arise. 13. This is what has happened in this case. Since the writ petitioner’s appointment was subject to clearing two medical tests prior to giving him an appointment and hence unless he had cleared both the medical tests, the question of his appointment to the post in question did not arise. 13. This is what has happened in this case. Since the writ petitioner’s appointment was subject to clearing two medical tests prior to giving him an appointment and hence unless he had cleared both the medical tests, the question of his appointment to the post in question did not arise. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that he had cleared both the medical tests and even the appointment order had been issued thereafter pursuant to which he had joined the post or that it was not necessary for him to have cleared the second one having cleared the first one or that, the second medical test was bad due to A reason or B reason and hence could not be relied on. 14. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that writ court was not right in holding that writ petitioner was entitled for any prior hearing or any show cause notice etc. before passing the impugned movement order. Indeed since it was not in the nature of termination of his services which had not yet begun for want of any appointment made in our view, it was not necessary for the appellant to give to the writ petitioner any prior notice or show cause or to hold any inquiry as was contended by the writ petitioner. In other words, there was no violation of principles of natural justice committed by the appellant before passing the impugned movement order. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the view taken by the writ court and hence while respectfully differing with the same, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and in consequence dismiss the writ petition by upholding the order dt. 2.6.2001 impugned in the writ petition. No costs. ______________