Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the Respondent no.1 and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent no. 2. 2. Affidavits have been taken on record. The contention of the Petitioners is that after proper advertisement and valid selection process, they were all appointed on probation for a period of two years. After completion of period in excess of one year, the appointments are found to be vitiated and hence Order terminating their service had been issued on 03.07.2013. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that though inquiry has been conducted against the entire recruitment process, action has been taken only against the Petitioners. Inquiry Officer has acted without jurisdiction by sitting in Appeal over the said process. He submits that the Petitioners were not given any opportunity before the Inquiry Officer and his report was directly placed before the Pollution Control Board. The Board accepted that report and thereafter a show cause notice came to be issued. The Petitioners submitted their replies to show cause notice raising various defences. Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate, points out that the Petitioner in Writ Petition no. 583/2013 had pointed out that she possesses post graduate qualification and, therefore, she should have been given ten marks more. This submission or similar specific submissions have not been considered by the Member Secretary who heard the Petitioner and has passed the impugned Order. He further submits that Board in its 107th meeting held on 15.02.2013, permitted/authorised its Chairman to take a decision and action. However, here, the impugned action has been taken by Member Secretary. He urges that according to the Respondents, the action of Member Secretary was then placed before the Chairman and the Chairman has approved it. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in accordance with the provisions of law, the employer namely the Board was only competent to take the suitable action and that has not been done in the matter. Without prejudice, he also submits that the Authority which has passed the Order has not heard the Petitioners. He, therefore, contends that in this situation, the impugned action is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Without prejudice, he also submits that the Authority which has passed the Order has not heard the Petitioners. He, therefore, contends that in this situation, the impugned action is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General, relying upon the reply/affidavit, states that after the recruitment, a Writ Petition was filed before this Court vide Writ Petition no. 707/2012 by one Ms. Sahyadri Sinari and in it on 13.10.2012 this Court recorded a statement of Board that it would investigate into the complaints received by it regarding the appointments. Thereafter, Board appointed retired Joint Secretary (Personnel) Government of Goa, as Inquiry Officer and terms of reference to said Inquiry Officer were also formulated. Accordingly, said Officer on 14.02.2013 submitted his report. The said report was then considered and accepted by Board in its 106th meeting held on 11.02.2013 and 107th (Special) meeting held on 15.02.2013. The Board found that selection process to the cadre of Scientific Assistance, Senior Laboratory Assistance and Junior Laboratory Assistance was vitiated. Hence, a show cause notice was served upon respective Petitioners asking why he/she should not be terminated in the light of the fact that the process of selection was vitiated. After obtaining the reply and extending opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, the impugned Order dated 03.07.2013 has been issued. He states that provisions of the Goa Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1989, authorise the Chairman to delegate obligations cast upon him to Member Secretary and, accordingly, the hearing was extended by Member Secretary and he passed the impugned Order which was then approved by the Chairman. 5. He further submits that in the light of complaint received from complainant, the recruitment of entire cadre was looked into and wherever irregularities or illegalities were found, the inquiry report refers to the same. He, therefore, denies that there is any hostile treatment to the Petitioners or any arbitrary discrimination in their matter. Without prejudice, he has also invited attention to the facts disclosed to indicate that the posts on which disputed recruitment is made were never validly or legally created on the establishment of Goa State Pollution Board. The recruitment to the posts itself was therefore not called for and, in any case, the State Government has already abolished those posts. He, therefore, contends that the Petitions need to be dismissed. 6. The recruitment to the posts itself was therefore not called for and, in any case, the State Government has already abolished those posts. He, therefore, contends that the Petitions need to be dismissed. 6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in reply submits that the Petitioners may separately assail the alleged abolition of posts. He also submits that as far as the challenge raised in the present Petition is concerned, the abolition of posts has got no bearing upon it. 7. After hearing the respective Senior Counsel, we find that the finding of facts in the present matter leading to a conclusion that the recruitment process is vitiated because the Petitioners have been given marks under the heads to which they were not entitled to, has been reached by Inquiry Officer and at that stage, Petitioners were not extended any opportunity. His report was accepted by the employer Board and even at that stage, the Petitioners were not given any opportunity. After acceptance of report, Board has found that as selection of Petitioners is vitiated, further action is necessary and authorised the Chairman to look into it. Accordingly, show cause notices came to be issued on 01.03.2013. 8. In the show cause notice, the Member Secretary who has signed it on behalf of Board has mentioned that the Board has decided to issue to the Petitioners show cause notice as to why his/her services with the Board should not be terminated in the light of the fact that process of selection is vitiated. 9. Petitioners have thereafter taken various defences. One of the defence raised by the Petitioner in Writ Petition no. 583 of 2013 is mentioned by us supra. That defence does not find any evaluation in the impugned Order dated 03.07.2013. The impugned Order also does not show that it is approved by either Board or Chairman. The Resolution of Board specifically authorises the Chairman to take suitable action. Thus, if decision and action was to be taken by the Chairman, the Chairman should have heard the Petitioners. 10. In this situation, when the Petitioners are getting opportunity only after receipt of show cause notice, we find that it was obligatory for the Chairman in the light of obligations cast upon him by the Board to extend an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and then to reach the necessary decision. 10. In this situation, when the Petitioners are getting opportunity only after receipt of show cause notice, we find that it was obligatory for the Chairman in the light of obligations cast upon him by the Board to extend an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and then to reach the necessary decision. That obviously has not been done in the present matter. 11. The Petitioners have also attempted to show that the marks under disputed heads are disapproved only in their case. Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer during the inquiry, has practically sat in appeal over the selecting authority and exercise undertaken by it. We do not wish to go into this controversy at this stage. We find that the authority authorized to take final decision and pass consequential Order has not extended opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Hence, only on said ground, we set aside the Order dated 03.07.2013. 12. However, here, as State Government has come up with specific case that posts are already abolished, it is not possible to this Court, in this matter to grant reinstatement. We direct the Respondent no. 2 to proceed to hear the respective Petitioners within a period of six weeks from today and take suitable decision on their grievance within further four weeks. 13. With these directions and keeping all the contentions open, we dispose of the Writ Petitions. No costs.