JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-13) communicated to the petitioner through e-mail, by which offer of appointment letter dated 20.12.2017 has been withdrawn and cancelled with immediate effect. 4. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent-authorities vide Advertisement No. RT/32/2015 dated 24.12.2015 for induction of Technical Workmen for different posts including the post of Fitter, the petitioner applied for the post of Fitter as he was having required qualification. The petitioner was declared successful in the written test as well as in the trade test and accordingly result was published on 20.12.2017, in which the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 28 in the Trade of Fitter. Later on, letter for offer of appointment has been issued to the petitioner for the post of Fitter on 20.12.2017, by which, the petitioner was asked to appear on 03.01.2018 at HEC Plant Hospital for medical examination and on 04.01.2018 for verification of the certificates, documents and forms. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that junior to the petitioner in the merit list, who also belongs to the category of OBC, has been appointed on the post of Fitter. He further submits that all of a sudden, the petitioner received an e-mail on 16.07.2019 indicating therein that the appointment provided to the petitioner stands withdrawn and cancelled with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the person in the same category, who was junior to the petitioner in the merit list, has been provided employment and without providing any reason in the impugned communication, the appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn and cancelled by the respondents, which cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 5. Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the person in the same category, who was junior to the petitioner in the merit list, has been provided employment and without providing any reason in the impugned communication, the appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn and cancelled by the respondents, which cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 5. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order has rightly been passed as it appears that there were some false documentation and information, supplied by the petitioner. 6. This Court has perused the impugned communication at Annexure-13 by which the appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn and cancelled. It appears that there is no reason assigned by the respondents in the impugned communication as to why the appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn and cancelled. This communication is a non-speaking order. In that view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 16.07.2019 at Annexure-13 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents, who will pass a fresh speaking order. If the respondents come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, they are directed to assign the reason as to why the appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn or cancelled, by passing a speaking order. If the respondents think it proper that they need certain clarification from the petitioner, they may ask for such clarification from the petitioner and on such call the petitioner will co-operate with the respondents. 7. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.