ORDER : 1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 5.5.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by Chief Engineer, Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur whereby their services on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) have been terminated and for directing the respondent authorities to allow them to continue working on the said post. 2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur, the petitioners applied for the post of Sub Engineer and after due selection process, they were selected and appointed on the said post. They were working on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) since 25.9.2013. However, all of a sudden, after 1 year and 9 months of their appointment, the Development Commissioner, Department of Rural Engineering Services, Raipur terminated their services on the ground that their educational qualification is not in accordance with the recruitment rules. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs: 1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2015 (Annex. P/1) and petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil), or in the alternative the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner (Akash Nayak) for appointment on the post of Assistant Draftsmen without giving effect to the resignation letter dated 18.09.2013. 2) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 5.5.2015 has been passed in an illegal manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with premeditation and malafide intention. It is a well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected person. It is a well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected person. It is further submitted that the respondents being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India have failed to appreciate the very fact that fair play in action warrants that no order which has the effect of the status of a person suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing on the matter. The petitioners have not obtained the requisite qualification through distance mode and therefore, by applying the circular dated 7.11.2013 their appointment cannot be cancelled. The respondent authorities cannot be permitted to take two different stands which are self contradictory as in WPS No.981/2014 the State had taken a stand that the petitioners have all the requisite qualifications and their appointment is valid and subsequently, they terminated their services on the ground that they did not have requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil). Therefore, the impugned order dated 5.5.2015 is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to allow the petitioners to continue working on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil). Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the order dated 12.6.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in WA No.450 of 2021 in the matter of Krishna Kumar Kosaria Vs. State of CG and another. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment on various vacant posts including the post of Sub Engineer (Civil). The requisite qualification for the said post is three years diploma in Civil Engineering or two years Post Diploma in Rural Technology and Management or higher education in civil engineering. The petitioners considering themselves to be eligible for the said post, submitted their applications along with necessary educational certificates. Thereafter, on 16.9.2013 appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners considering themselves to be eligible for the said post, submitted their applications along with necessary educational certificates. Thereafter, on 16.9.2013 appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioners. However, after appointment of the petitioners, a dispute arose regarding educational qualification of the petitioners as they obtained degree/diploma from an institute established outside the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners obtained their degree/diploma through distance education from Institution of Civil Engineering (India), Ludhiyana (Punjab) which is not allowed for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) as per Circular dated 7.11.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Raipur and Clause 3 of the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards In Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. As per policy of AICTE, it does not recognize the qualification acquired through distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors & Master Level in the fields of Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Catering Technology and applied Arts & Crafts & Post Graduate Diploma in Management. So far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, the appointment of the petitioners was provisional one and they were on probation period for two years. The impugned order has been issued in compliance with Rule 12 of CG Government Service (Temporary & Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960 which provides that services of an employee can be cancelled/terminated at any time by giving a month’s notice. Since the petitioners did not possess the requisite educational qualification for holding the post of Sub Engineer (Civil), compliance of principle of natural justice before termination of their services would be nothing but a useless formality. This apart, the present petitions are also not maintainable for non-joinder of University Grants Commission which is a necessary party as it is a parent Act enacted for coordination and determination of standards in Universities. Hence, both these petitions being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Professor Yashpal and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2005) 5 SCC 420. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Hence, both these petitions being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Professor Yashpal and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2005) 5 SCC 420. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in Rural Engineering Services Department vide order dated 16.9.2013 and after serving for a period of 1 year and 9 months, their services were terminated by order dated 5.5.2015 without issuing any show cause notice or conducting any departmental enquiry in accordance with law. 7. This Court in the case of Mrityunjay Shukla and others Vs. Municipal Corporation, Raiupr and others, 2009 (1) CGLJ 97 , after referring to various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, observed in paras 21 & 22 of its order as under: “21. There is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing. 22. Applying well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners were removed from services without complying with the principles of natural justice when the petitioners have already served for more than 5 1/2 years. The petitioners cannot be thrown out on the ground that they did not have the requisite qualification at the time of appointment. Even if there is lack of requisite qualification, the petitioners are entitled to show cause notice to put forward their cases.” 8. This Court in the matter of Krishna Kumar Kosaria (supra) observed in paras 24, 25 & 26 of its judgment as under: “24. Even if there is lack of requisite qualification, the petitioners are entitled to show cause notice to put forward their cases.” 8. This Court in the matter of Krishna Kumar Kosaria (supra) observed in paras 24, 25 & 26 of its judgment as under: “24. In the matter of Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 492 , the question that fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was, whether the provisions contained under the Jodhpur Service Regulations was sufficient to enable the Government to remove a person from service without giving him an opportunity of showing cause against that punishment, if any, and it was answered in negative holding that the regulation involves a punishment for overstaying one's leave and the burden is thrown on the incumbent to secure reinstatement by showing cause and the Government cannot order a person to be discharged from service without at least telling him that they propose to remove him and without giving him an opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be removed. It has further been observed as under :- “6. ... A removal is removal and if it is punishment for overstaying one's leave an opportunity must be given to the person against whom such an order is proposed, no matter how the regulation describes it. To give no opportunity is to go against Article 311 and this is what has happened here. 7. In our judgment, Jai Shankar was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed removal from service on his overstaying his leave and as no such opportunity was given to him, his removal from service was illegal. He is entitled to this declaration.” 25. Similarly, in the matter of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 , another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that an order of termination of service passed under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code on account of the servant's continuous absence for five years without giving an opportunity to the servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India would be invalid. 26. 26. The aforesaid principles of law laid down in Jai Shanker (supra) and Deokinandan Prasad (supra) have been followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Assam v. Akshaya Kumar Deb, (1975) 4 SCC 339 wherein the question that required consideration was as under :- “7. The only question that falls for determination is whether the services of the respondent could be terminated under Rule 18 of the Assam Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules, without complying with the procedure prescribed in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India?” 9. Here in this case also, it is admitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order of termination of their services. So, if the well settled principles of law are applied to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners were removed from services without complying with the principles of natural justice when they have served for more than 1 year and 9 months, they cannot be thrown out of employment on the ground that they did not possess the requisite educational qualification at the time of their appointment. Before terminating their services, they ought to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to put forth their stand. However, it has not been done in this case. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the manner in which the petitioners were removed from service, the impugned orders dated 5.5.2015 (Annexure P/1) are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The petitions are thus allowed with consequential benefits flowing from this order. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action, if so advised, in accordance with law, against the petitioners, following the basic principles of natural justice.