JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. All the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. The prayer in the present writ petitions is for quashing of the Orders dated 21.08.2015 as well as dated 13.08.2015 vide which the services of the petitioners have been terminated. 3. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 25.05.2012 for recruitment to the post of Safai Karamchari in the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh. As per the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Karamchari Service) Rules, 2012, a candidate is required to satisfy certain eligibility criteria. The petitioners who applied in pursuance to the said advertisement were selected on the said post. However, their services have been terminated without giving any opportunity of being heard. Reply has been filed. 4. As per the reply, the recruitment process was challenged before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12955/2013 titled as "Smt. Madhubala & ors. v. State & ors." and vide Order dated 08.05.2014, the Court directed the respondent - Local Self Department to hold an enquiry regarding the entire mode of recruitment. In pursuance to the same, an enquiry was conducted in which certain irregularities were found and certain candidates were found to have been wrongly selected being ineligible. Subsequently, another High Power Committee was ordered to be constituted by the High Court. In pursuance to the said order passed in the Contempt Petition No. 285/2015, a high power committee comprising of (1) Principal Secretary, Local Self Government - Chairman, (2) Deputy Director (Administration), Local Self Government - Member Secretary, (3) Deputy Director (Regional), Local Body, Bikaner - Member and (4) Commissioner, Municipal Council, Hanumangarh - Member has been constituted to go into the alleged illegal appointments made in the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh. The record was considered by the Enquiry Committee and the eligibility of the employees as per their application form was considered and scrutinized. The petitioners were found to be ineligible on various counts and it was only thereafter that the order of termination was passed. It is contended that there was no question of petitioners' being heard and afforded opportunity of hearing as the order of termination was passed in pursuance to the report of the enquiry committee and the documents submitted by the petitioners. Heard. 5. It is admitted that the petitioners were never given any enquiry report. It is contended that there was no question of petitioners' being heard and afforded opportunity of hearing as the order of termination was passed in pursuance to the report of the enquiry committee and the documents submitted by the petitioners. Heard. 5. It is admitted that the petitioners were never given any enquiry report. It is also admitted that before filing of the report, the petitioners were not even made aware that as to why their services are being terminated and they came to know for the first time about the termination of their services vide impugned orders. It is also admitted that no notice before terminating their services was given to the petitioners. It is a well settled proposition of law that principles of natural justice requires that before making a decision, a prior notice of the proposed decision to persons affected by it and opportunity to raise objection should be given. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. C.A. No. 4584 of 2013 (SLP (C) No.16388 of 2011) decided on 9.5.2013 is fully applicable to the case in hand. In that case, enquiry was initiated wherein on receipt of complaints alleging large scale irregularities in the placement of selected candidates in different colleges. The District Magistrate after holding enquiry in pursuance to the direction of the State Government found that in some cases, the candidates were given placement against nonexistent posts in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court. In view of the finding of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, the State Government issued directions for cancellation of placement of the appellants and others on the post of Principals. The Apex Court after relying on the various judicial pronouncements allowed the appeals by holding as under:- "We shall now advert to the impugned orders. As analysis thereof shows that the High Court had mainly relied upon the fact finding report prepared by the District Magistrate, referred to the provisions of the 1980 Act and held that the appellants' placement in the particular colleges was contrary to law and they were responsible for such placement. The High Court noted that some of the appellants had been placed in the colleges which were not even advertised by the Commission and others were placed against the vacancies notified in earlier years. The High Court noted that some of the appellants had been placed in the colleges which were not even advertised by the Commission and others were placed against the vacancies notified in earlier years. In the opinion of the High Court, the placement of the appellants was per se illegal and void. However, the record produced before this Court does not show the appellants' direct involvement in their placement in the particular colleges. That apart, the questions whether the appellants' placement in the particular colleges was contrary to the statute and whether their placement was subsequently changed for extraneous considerations could not have been decided without supplying each one of them copy of the inquiry report and without giving him/her an effective opportunity to controvert the findings recorded by the District Magistrate, who had prepared the report by looking at one side of the coin. He did not give opportunity to any of the appellants to represent his/her cause or explain his/her position. Not only this, he did not confront any of the appellants with the adverse material produced before him. Therefore, the report of the District Magistrate could not have been relied upon by the State Government for directing cancellation of the placement of the appellants in the particular Colleges and the Director committed grave illegality by mandating the termination of their services." 6. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 11 SCC 356 considered the question whether the selection and / or appointment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) could be canceled on the allegations of favouritism and corruption without giving opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates. The appellants in that case had been selected for appointment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). On receipt of the complaints that there were large scale irregularities in the process of selection, the High Court recommended to the State Government that the entire selection may be canceled. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the High Court and canceled the selection. The affected candidates, some of whom had already been appointed against the vacant posts, challenged the decision of the High Court and the State Government. A three Judge Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the High Court and canceled the selection. The affected candidates, some of whom had already been appointed against the vacant posts, challenged the decision of the High Court and the State Government. A three Judge Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Apex Court reversed the order of the High Court and held that the selection could not have been canceled without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates. 7. Some of the observations in the said case are relevant for the purpose of the decision in the present case which are as under:- "Undoubtedly, in the selection process, there have been manipulations and irregularities at the behest of R.S. Sidhu, the then Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission. On a careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the High Court ought to have made a serious endeavour to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates. Though the task was certainly difficult, but by no stretch of imagination, was it an impossible task. The peculiar facts of this case which need to be highlighted are that some of the candidates have worked for about three years and their services were terminated only on the basis of criminal investigation which was at the initial stage. The termination of their services as a consequence of cancellation of selection would not only prejudice their interests seriously, but would ruin their entire future career. The facts of this case reveal that the material supplied to the Committee having regard to the fact that majority of the officers named in the FIR belonged to 2001 batch, the respondents not only cancelled the entire selection of 2001 batch, but on the basis of the cancellation of selections of 2001 batch the entire process of 1999 and 2002 selections was also cancelled. It is also relevant to mention that the selection process for the year 1998 was not the subject-matter nor any recommendation had been made by the Committee, even then the selections of this year were also vitiated. The High Court Committee without there being sufficient and adequate material on record recommended cancellation of selections of both the executive and judicial officers and the Full Bench erred in accepting the recommendation and terminating the services of all the officers. The High Court Committee without there being sufficient and adequate material on record recommended cancellation of selections of both the executive and judicial officers and the Full Bench erred in accepting the recommendation and terminating the services of all the officers. A close scrutiny of the facts of this case clearly reveals that the judicial officers did not get a fair treatment by the High Court. They were not given copies of the report and other material on which reliance was placed and they virtually had no chance of making effective representation before the Committee or any other forum where they could ventilate their grievances and present their point of view." 8. Applying the test in the present case and taking into account the admitted facts that no enquiry report was given to the petitioners and no prior notice of the proposed decision to be taken by them was given to the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders have been passed in sheer violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, same cannot be sustained. The object behind a notice of opportunity is that a person must be given fair hearing which should extend to the right to have notice of the other side's case, the right to bring evidence and the right to argue. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The impugned Orders dated 21.08.2015 as well as dated 13.08.2015 vide which the services of the petitioners have been terminated are set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders within two months after giving due opportunity to each of the petitioners in accordance with law and after complying with the well settled principles of natural justice.