JUDGMENT S. Ramathilagam, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Judge, Trichy in A.S.No.338 of 2004, dated 16.06.2003, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 340 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy. 2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case in O.S.No.340 of 1995 is that the plaintiff joined the defendant's institution as a steno Typist cum Clerk in the year 1980. On her completion of probation, she reported to duty at the Secretariat Division at Chennai. She gave a requisition to transfer her from Chennai to Tiruchirappalli on account of fixing of her marriage and as her would be was settled at Tiruchirapalli. Hence, she was transferred to Tiruchirapalli as per Rule 90(g)(iii) of Tamilnadu Electricity Board Service Regulations on her requisition. 3. While she was working at Tiruchirappalli, after completion of 10 years of service, she was moved to Selection Grade. Four years thereafter, there was an objection from the audit as per Ex.B.3 the order permitting her to move to the Selection Grade was cancelled vide Ex.A.7. The service of Steno Typists in the Secretariat Branch is not different from the service in the Mofussil. The conditions of service, the rights and duties of the Steno Typists in both the divisions are one and the same. Hence the plaintiff challenged the cancellation order Ex.A.7 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. 4. The case of the defendant is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the plaintiff. Orders of movement to Selection Grade dated 19.9.1990 was issued to the plaintiff taking into account of her service including the service rendered in the Secretariat Branch and that was objected by the Audit Authorities on the ground that services rendered at Secretariat Branch should not be taken into account for fixation of seniority as per the conditions for transfer stipulated by the Board. The same should not have been taken in to account for movement to Selection Grade. The objection of the audit authorities was submitted to the Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer upheld the audit objection. Therefore the orders issued for movement to Selection Grade was cancelled. 5. The same should not have been taken in to account for movement to Selection Grade. The objection of the audit authorities was submitted to the Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer upheld the audit objection. Therefore the orders issued for movement to Selection Grade was cancelled. 5. The further contention of the defendants 1 to 3 are that the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Service Regulation 90 (g)(a)(iii) and (h)(i) if approved probationer is transferred permanently from one office in one departmental unit to any office in another departmental unit, she has to forgo her right to seniority and she has to take the rank last in the list of probationers or approved probationers as the case may be. 6. While giving transfer application, plaintiff gave an undertaking that (a) she will forego her right to seniority on the basis of date of her first appointment. (b) She will take the rank last in the list of probationer as on date of her join in the Tiruchirappalli Electricity Distribution Circle and (c) She will forgo her transfer travelling allowance for the transfer. Therefore the plaintiff is estopped from contending otherwise. Hence the order of cancellation of movement to selection grade is in order and therefore the plaintiff has no cause to complain and the case cannot be prosecuted before the Civil Court and further the claim is also barred by limitation. 7. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial court has framed as many as six issues. xxxxxxxxxx 8. The trial court accepting the contention of the plaintiff decreed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, the defendant preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court based on the pleadings and documentary evidence has raised the following points for consideration. '1. Whether the undertaking given by the plaintiff that she would take the last rank in the place of joining would be binding upon the plaintiff? 2. Whether the services rendered by the plaintiff at the office of secretariat division could be counted for moving to selection grade? 3. Whether the civil court has got jurisdiction? 4. Whether the cancellation of orders moving the plaintiff to selection grade was done after following the principles of natural justice? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction?' 9. 3. Whether the civil court has got jurisdiction? 4. Whether the cancellation of orders moving the plaintiff to selection grade was done after following the principles of natural justice? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction?' 9. Considering the issues framed before the trial Court and also the points taken for consideration before the First Appellate Court and the pleadings of both sides, we observe that the plaintiff was appointed as Steno Typist on 3.9.1980. Her services were regularised in the year 1981 and on 15.2.1984, she applied for transfer, as per which, she was issued with transfer orders on 25.6.1984. On 3.9.1990, she was allowed to move to the Selection Grade post with effect from 3.9.1990. During the course of her service at Tiruchirapalli she was transferred from Tiruchirapalli Electricity Systems Division to General Construction Circle, (Central) Thiruchirapalli. Thereafter, by order dated 13.12.1995, the order permitting her to move to selection grade was cancelled by giving the following reasons; "The orders issued in this office above memo for the movement of Selection Grade to Tmt. Niloufer Jahan, steno with effect from 03.09.90 FN, is hereby cancelled, as her services from the date of joining in this Circle on request transfer will be reckoned for movement to Selection grade as per the Chief Engineer/Personnel's letter No. 127220/ 1867/OS(2) 94-F, dated 16/24-12-94. 10. The substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows; 1. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit which relates to the service jurisprudence? 2. When the plaintiff/respondent herself has voluntarily given an undertaking which was marked as Ex.B6 that she will forgo her right to seniority on the basis of date of her first appointment and she will take the rank last in the list of probationer as on date of her joining in Tiruchirapalli, whether the plaintiff/respondent is estopped from questioning the same? 3. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the service rendered in different branch of the same board is not a criteria for selection grade while computing the period of ten years from the date of service is legally sustainable. 11. 3. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the service rendered in different branch of the same board is not a criteria for selection grade while computing the period of ten years from the date of service is legally sustainable. 11. The documents filed on the side of the appellant Electricity Board dated 3.12.1979 as per proceedings in MS No. 288 (Secretariat Branch) which deals with the creation of selection grade post on higher scale of pay is to be considered. The contents of the said proceedings is as follows; 'Leave, other than the extra ordinary leave without pay and allowance should be taken into account while computing 10 years period. The period of ten years in a post will be reckoned from the date of regular appointment to the post but will exclude the parties to revision.' 12. The relevant condition in the suit proceedings is the period of 10 years will be reckoned from the date of regular appointment to the post. Admittedly the plaintiff was put into regular appointment to the post on 3.9.1980. The plaintiff joined the defendant Board in 1980 and on completion of service, she reported to duty. 13. Therefore the condition as per Ex.A.7 that services of the plaintiff would be counted from the defendant joining in the Construction Circle will be reckoned for movement to selection grade cannot be correct. The Audit Report Ex.B.3 raised the query that whether the services rendered in Secretariat Branch in the post of Steno Typist cannot be taken for the purpose of seniority as well as movement to selection grade in the post of Steno Typist in Circle Office. The above said both posts belong to different services. 14. Ex.B.4 is the letter from Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Central, Post Box No. 820, Mannarpuram, Trichy-20 to the Chief Engineer/Personnel, Electricity Avenue, Annasalai, Madras-2 expressing opinion that the order of movement to selection grade issued to the plaintiff reckoning from the period of service of the Secretariat Branch is in order and no revision is necessary. But in Ex.B.5, the Chief Engineer has replied that the audit objection is self explanatory and it is in order. So for movement to Selection Grade, the date of regular appointment to the post alone is the criteria and the services rendered in the different Branch of the same Board is not the criteria. 15. But in Ex.B.5, the Chief Engineer has replied that the audit objection is self explanatory and it is in order. So for movement to Selection Grade, the date of regular appointment to the post alone is the criteria and the services rendered in the different Branch of the same Board is not the criteria. 15. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board has effected certain amendments to Tamilnadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. The regulation No. 90, sub-regulation (g) and (h) are omitted. This is numbered as amendment No.9/1985. The Rules governing the transfers in the year 1994 is covered by Rule 19(g)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Services Regulations and rule 90(h) deals with mutual transfer and 90(g) deals with transfer of administrative necessity. 16. It does not call for any undertaking as contemplated under clause 90(h)(i). The question of giving an undertaking agreeing to forgo the seniority and to take the seniority last in the list will arise in the case of mutual transfers. 17. The question of taking or necessity of such an undertaking for transfers which are mutual transfers is not contemplated in the rule itself. The relevant rule 90(g)(iii) in its proviso states that a transfer under clause (iii) shall be made only with the consent of the Board. It is not contemplated that the Board has the authority to insist upon undertaking of any such sort, nor the rule contemplate that the Board has the authority to insist upon such an such an undertaking while entertaining transfer application, the authorities concerned cannot insist upon any such undertaking. Any undertaking given by the plaintiff which is not at all contemplated by the rules has no legal validity and it is void. 18. Hence the only undertaking that is expected is that the person seeking transfer shall forgo transfer travelling allowance for the above transfer. But the cancellation order says that it is in accordance with law rules and regulations. 19. Ex.A.7 is dated 13.2.1995. The main arguments advanced by the respondent/plaintiff is that the order cancelling the move to the selection grade is illegal by quoting the following case laws; (i) (R. Sulochana Devi Vs. But the cancellation order says that it is in accordance with law rules and regulations. 19. Ex.A.7 is dated 13.2.1995. The main arguments advanced by the respondent/plaintiff is that the order cancelling the move to the selection grade is illegal by quoting the following case laws; (i) (R. Sulochana Devi Vs. D.M. Sujatha and Others, (2004) 5 CTC 108), wherein it is held as follows; "Administrative law-Principles of Natural Justice Order passed without notice to party is not an order passed in accordance with law Such order is nullity and need not be challenged in Court of law." (ii) (N.G. Subrmanian Vs. The District Educational Officer, Tirupattur and Others, (1990) 1 MLJ 320 ). (iii) (Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur Vs. L.N. Kashri and Others, (1974) AIR SC 1889). 20. It is argued by the respondent that all the three decisions arrived in the case categories are limited to the case which go to show that any order passed, which takes away the rights already given to a party is illegal. In this case, the orders of cancellation has been passed after a lapse of 4 years after conferment of selection grade. Whereas, the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to explain as to why the Selection Grade already conferred upon her should not be cancelled. Here the respondent was not given a chance of expressing her explanation after she was served with a show cause notice. Whereas the respondent/plaintiff is totally deprived of her right to make her explanation. Hence the order lacks the fundamental principle of natural justice i.e., the respondent/plaintiff is totally denied of her right to know the reason for the cancellation of movement and expressed her explanation for the same since the order was passed after four years of the confirmation of selection grade. 21. In view of the argument advanced by the respondent/plaintiff and also in view of the decisions arrived in he above cases, the plaintiff lacks the opportunity of giving her explanation for such cancellation of the order, whereas she is deprived of the same by not issuing any show cause notice to the respondent/plaintiff. Hence the impugned order issued by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is hereby set aside. 22. Regarding the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a (Tamil Nadu Cement corporation Limited, Ariyalur Vs. Hence the impugned order issued by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is hereby set aside. 22. Regarding the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a (Tamil Nadu Cement corporation Limited, Ariyalur Vs. Jabamalai and Others, 1995 TLNJ 45), wherein an employee was suspended who was seeking to have his service conditions to be declared by a Civil Court and his plea was negatived on the plea of lack of jurisdiction. But in this case, the order which was passed by the Chief Engineer, Electricity itself has no legal existence and that the grievance of the respondent/plaintiff is that the order should be declared as a void because of lacking of natural justice and the same was issued by the authority who was vested with the power. 23. On the side of the respondent, it is also argued that in Dhulebhai and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another which deals with the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the decision arrived in that case is that the Civil Court can declare the act of an authority as illegal ad void, in case there is violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. Hence, in this case, the prime relief sought by the plaintiff is that the cancellation order passed by the Chief Engineer has to be declared as void and on perusal of the GO and the service regulations of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the order is lacking natural justice, hence that is found to be one which is lacking the fundamental principles has been declared as void. 24. It is to be noted that just because the plaintiff has given an undertaking, she is not in any way binding by such undertaking when the circular is very clear. 25. In that circumstances, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare that the act of the Chief Engineer who is the authority passed the said order. 24. It is to be noted that just because the plaintiff has given an undertaking, she is not in any way binding by such undertaking when the circular is very clear. 25. In that circumstances, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare that the act of the Chief Engineer who is the authority passed the said order. Hence considering the facts of the case and the GO and the order passed by the appellant and also the grievance of the respondent, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is confirmed by saying hat the order of the appellant is void and regarding the jurisdiction also the Sub Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and hence the First Appellate Court findings which confirms that the decree and judgment of the trial court does not require any interference and the same is hereby confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law are answered accordingly. 26. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. No costs.