ORDER : Cancellation of his appointment on the post of Jr. Line Man by an order dated 23.08.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner primarily, on the ground that he, who was previously employed under the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) on the same post possesses the necessary qualifications for appointment. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Jr. Line Man pursuant to the Employment Notice No. 01/2006. His appointment was on contract as Trainee Jr. Line Man. The contract was initially for one year which was subsequently extended from time to time. The respondent-JUVNL issued Employment Notification No. 02/2015 for appointment on different posts for filling up temporary technical posts for its subsidiary companies namely, JBVNL, JUSNL and JUUNL. The petitioner submitted online application on 29.09.2015 for the post of Jr. Line Man. Selection procedure involved written test and interview. Candidates having working experience exceeding required maximum three years' experience were provided experience preference by according weightage of 1.5 marks for each completed additional six months of experience, however, subject to a maximum of 15 marks. The petitioner was declared qualified in the written examination held on 08.11.2015. Appointment letter dated 30.01.2016 for his provisional appointment on the post of Jr. Line Man was issued. He submitted a certification dated 23.02.2016 from Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill Development in respect of equivalence of certificate. By an order dated 25.02.2016 he was deployed for on-job-training and on completion of training he remained posted at Electric Supply Section, Lalpur where, he was served a copy of order dated 23.08.2016, whereby his appointment has been cancelled. 4. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have reiterated their stand as reflected in the impugned order dated 23.08.2016. It is pleaded that on 28.12.2015 during the course of verification when it was found that the petitioner is possessing certification of ITI in Electronics, which is not the qualification notified in the Employment Notification No. 02/2015, he was provided an opportunity to produce a certificate from the Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill Development to the effect that ITI in Electrical and ITI in Electronics are similar and equivalent qualification. The respondent-JUVNL has taken a stand that the certificate dated 23.02.2016 does not speak of equivalence of the above two courses. 5. Advertisement No. 01/2006 was issued for appointment on various posts including, Jr. Line Man. The respondent-JUVNL has taken a stand that the certificate dated 23.02.2016 does not speak of equivalence of the above two courses. 5. Advertisement No. 01/2006 was issued for appointment on various posts including, Jr. Line Man. The mandatory qualification for appointment on the post of Jr. Line Man was two years' ITI in Electrician/Wireman from a recognised institute. The petitioner was appointed as Trainee Jr. Line Man under the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (of which JUVNL has been created) is an admitted fact. Under JUVNL Employment Notification No. 02 of 2015, the prescribed qualification for Jr. Line Man was Trade Certificate as Electrician/Wireman from ITI. One year's post-job experience was another qualification. He was an applicant for the post of Jr. Line Man. Total number of vacancies for this post was 200. The petitioner falls under General category (UR) for which 100 vacancies for the aforesaid post was advertised. 6. The respondents have not pleaded that the prescribed qualification of ITI Electrician/Wireman in Employment Notification No. 02 of 2015 is substantially different from the qualification for the said post under Advertisement No. 01 of 2006. It is not a case pleaded by the respondent-JUVNL that under a mistake the petitioner was offered appointment as Jr. Line Man. 7. Mr. O.P. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent-JUVNL has, however, contended that once it is found that the petitioner does not possesses certificate of ITI Electricians/Wireman, he cannot claim appointment. This contention has been raised in ignorance of one year's post-job experience qualification. The respondents after having verified the petitioner's trade certificate and on being satisfied that he possesses requisite qualification, appointed him on 20.08.2008. At the time of making application pursuant to Employment Notification No. 02 of 2015, he had experience of 7 years and 1 month under the respondent-JBVNL. Now, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner does not fulfill the prescribed qualification. In my opinion, once a candidate attains post-job one year's experience qualification and, that too, under the same employer, he must be held eligible for the said post in the subsequent selection exercise unless, it is pleaded that the prescribed qualification in the subsequent Employment Notification is substantially different. Insistence of the respondent-JUVNL on producing a certification of equivalence of trade certificate from the Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill Development was wholly unwarranted. 8. Insistence of the respondent-JUVNL on producing a certification of equivalence of trade certificate from the Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill Development was wholly unwarranted. 8. The Certificate dated 23.02.2016 produced by the petitioner records that persons holding Trade Certificate in Electronics are competent to perform the work of Electrician. Job profile of Jr. Line Man does not require some special knowledge as Electrician which a person holding Trade Certificate in Electronics cannot possess. 9. There is another infirmity in the decision to cancel appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.2016. Before cancellation of his appointment, no notice was issued to the petitioner. Had a notice been issued to him, he would have produced materials to satisfy the employer that there is no difference or not much difference in Trade certificates of ITI Electrician/Wireman and ITI Electronics. He could have also impressed upon the employer that by virtue of his experience of more than 7 years and the prescribed qualification he is equally qualified and suitable, if not more suitable, for appointment on the post of Jr. Line Man. In “State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei” reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 , it has been held that even an administrative order or decision, in matters involving civil consequences, must be made consistent with rules of natural justice. In “Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. Debasis Das & Ors.” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus; 15. “The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. …............Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time.................” 10. The impugned order dated 23.08.2016 has been issued without notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, accordingly, it is hereby quashed. The respondent-Deputy General Manager is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment, afresh, within four weeks. 11. The writ-petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.