JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur by which the petitioners have been demoted to IV Grade post without any show-cause or notice. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioners to work as IIIrd Grade employee and to pay them the salary of IIIrd Grade employee on which they are working since 14.6.2013 after getting promotion. 2. The petitioners were appointed as IV Grade employee in the year 2005 and were posted in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur. The petitioners were promoted to Class-III posts conducted by the District Administration after following due process of written test and interview in which the petitioner appeared and declared successful. Further their promotion was approved by the District Establishment Committee on 1.6.2013. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the order of promotion was issued by respondent No. 3 on 14.6.2013 and the petitioners were promoted as Clerk and were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/-. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that vide notification dated 27.3.2010 issued by Government of Jharkhand it has been made clear that 15% of the post of the Clerk would be filled by promotion from IVth Grade after conducting written examination. The petitioners are working as IIIrd Grade employee sincerely since June, 2013 with the satisfaction of their superior authority. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that all of sudden the petitioners received the order dated 30.1.2014 issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur by which it was informed that they have been reverted back to Grade IV posts and they will be getting salary attached with IVth Grade posts. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal in nature and against the principle of natural justice. The employees, who are working since 14.6.2013 as IIIrd Grade employees after getting promotion are entitled for their legal right to continue on the same post. Nitu Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal in nature and against the principle of natural justice. The employees, who are working since 14.6.2013 as IIIrd Grade employees after getting promotion are entitled for their legal right to continue on the same post. Order of demotion of petitioners to Grade IV posts by the respondent no. 3 without any show-cause or notice is totally illegal and arbitrary in nature. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the promotion of the petitioners has been granted after following the due process of promotion and has also been approved by the District Establishment Committee and such reverting back of the petitioners to Grade-IV posts by the respondent No. 3 is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Learned Sr. Counsel argues that notification dated 27.3.2010 would be operative only from the date of its publication in the official gazette. However, 2010 Rules have not yet been published. Learned Counsel further argued that appointment by promotion from Class-IV to Class-III has been excluded from the function of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 by an amendment dated 30.9.2011. 9. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that any promotion which has been granted by the District Establishment Committee cannot be snatched away by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and as such the order at Annexure-3 dated 30.1.2014 is fit to be quashed and set aside. 10. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 11. Ms. Shruti Shrestha, J.C. to A.G. counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 13 of the counter-affidavit and submits that the promotion procedure was adopted by the then Dy. Commissioner against the guidelines issued vide letter no. 32 by Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Jharkhand in which a complaint was received by Regional Dy. Director, Health Services, Dumka and as such the promotion order was stayed vide memo No. 985 dated 14.6.2013 on the grounds that the promotion of IVth Grade employee to IIIrd Grade has to be done by Awas Chayan Parishad, Jharkhand and direction was made to the Civil Surgeon not to pay the salary of the promoted employees vide Memo No. 232 dated 27.6.2013. 12. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State further submits that Annexure-3 is erroneous and it is only Rules 2010 which is applicable in the case of the petitioners and any illegality cannot be allowed to perpetuate and the Rules have to be read harmoniously and. any promotion order which has been given illegally and arbitrarily de hors the Rules cannot be allowed to continue in the grab of principle of natural justice. The principle of natural justice has to be enforced in a particular situation. In the instant case as the appointment/promotion has been given de hors the Rules, the principle of natural justice is not attracted and as such action of the respondents is fully justified. 13. Learned Counsel also draws the attention of the Court towards supplementary affidavit dated 19.8.2017 and submits that already processes have been initiated for conducting limited departmental exams and as such the writ petition has become infructuous. 14. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted promotion following the procedures of law by the District Establishment Committee. Nowhere it has been said that procedures of law have not been followed. It has been categorically held that any order visiting civil consequences cannot be brushed aside without following the cardinal principle of natural justice. Admittedly, in the instant case before setting aside the order of promotion and issuance of rejection order from Class-III to Class-IV the petitioners were not even issued any show-cause notice. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned order. Reasons have been shown by way of counter-affidavit. The order at Annexure-3 dated 30.1.2014 is not tenable in the eyes of law on the following grounds: i. the order of promotion was issued to the petitioners following the legal procedures and were declared successful in the written test and interview conducted by the District Administration and was duly approved by the District Establishment Committee on 1.6.2013. ii. the petitioners were not even issued any show-cause notice before passing the order of demotion. Any order issued by the District Establishment Committee cannot be brushed aside by the Civil Surgeon. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and the same has been supplemented by way of counter-affidavit which is not tenable in the eyes of law. ii. the petitioners were not even issued any show-cause notice before passing the order of demotion. Any order issued by the District Establishment Committee cannot be brushed aside by the Civil Surgeon. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and the same has been supplemented by way of counter-affidavit which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Any order visiting civil consequence cannot be snatched away without following the provisions of cardinal principle of natural justice. iii. the Hon'ble Apex Court in its reported judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhan Das Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 has clearly held that what is not in the order cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit. The same has been reiterated in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in (1978)1 SCC 405 . 15. I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 30.1.2014 at Annexure-3. However, the respondents are free to take any decision in accordance with law after following the due procedures and provisions of natural justice and after giving ample opportunity for hearing to the petitioners. 16. Resultantly, writ petition stands disposed. 17. Consequently, I.A. No. 3506 of 2016 stands disposed of.