JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. 11010/NHAI/PIU-JSR/2018/1955dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the service of the petitioner on the post of Young Professional (Technical) in National Highways Authority of India has been dispensed with immediate effect and after quashing the aforesaid letter, the respondents may be directed to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and to pay him the arrears of monthly remuneration which has not been paid since his joining on 01.11.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) issued an advertisement on 05.10.2017 for walk-in-interview for the post of Young Professional (Technical) on contract basis for a period of two years which could have been extended for further one more year on the consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.60,000/-. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the said post, participated in interview and was finally selected. He was offered appointment vide letter dated 28.10.2017 issued by the General Manager (Tech) & Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit (PIU)- Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 3). An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-NHAI on 01.11.2017 wherein it was stipulated that the said engagement was on full time contract basis for a period of two years from the date of agreement, i.e. 01.11.2017, and NHAI had the rights to terminate the said contract at any time without assigning reasons, by giving one month notice or emoluments in lieu thereof. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner joined the said post on 01.11.2017, however he was never paid salary for which he repeatedly requested the Project Director, NHAI, PIU-Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 3), but the same was not responded, rather the said respondent giving reference of RO’s letter no. NHAI/RO/RNC/JH/Admn/5883 dated 08.10.2018 issued letter no. 11010/NHAI/PIU-JSR/2018/1955 on 09.10.2018 whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect. It is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 09.10.2018. The said letter was issued merely with reference to Regional Officer’s letter dated 08.10.2018 and not on account of any misconduct or termination under the terms of the agreement. 4. It is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 09.10.2018. The said letter was issued merely with reference to Regional Officer’s letter dated 08.10.2018 and not on account of any misconduct or termination under the terms of the agreement. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the amended guidelines and procedures for engaging External Professional and Young Professional in NHAI, the concerned Regional Officers were required to approve the recommendation of the Screening-cum-Selection Committee for the respective PIUs, however due to a complaint lodged by one Sachin Kumar before the respondent no.1 regarding discrepancies in the selection process, the recommendation for selection of the petitioner was not approved. Accordingly, the impugned letter dispensing with the services of the petitioner with immediate effect was issued. 5. It is further submitted that any appointment made de hors the rules has no validity and in such cases, there is no need to follow the principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned person i.e., the petitioner herein. Since the recommendation of the Screening-cum-Selection Committee was not approved by the Regional Officer, Ranchi, there was no question for making payment of remuneration to the petitioner. 6. It is also submitted that since in the 3rd paragraph of engagement letter dated 28.10.2017 issued to the petitioner, it was wrongly mentioned by the respondent no. 3 as “This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority” whereby the petitioner was allowed to join on the post of Young Professional (Tech) and his services was utilized without approval of the competent authority, a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the said authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was appointed on the post of “Young Professional (Technical)” after following due procedure, his services has been dispensed with arbitrarily without following the principles of natural justice. Moreover, his lawful remuneration has also not been paid for the period he satisfactory discharged his duties under the respondents. 9. Moreover, his lawful remuneration has also not been paid for the period he satisfactory discharged his duties under the respondents. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the recommendation of the Screening Committee was not approved by the competent authority i.e., Regional Officer, NHAI, Regional Office, Ranchi and as such the appointment of the petitioner was void ab-initio. Accordingly, he has neither any right to hold the said post nor is entitled to any remuneration. 10. In the case of State of Odisha & Others Vs. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 482 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “34. It is not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/statute. It is a trite law that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgments of this Court in [Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal v. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse, (1991) 3 SCC 246 ], [J&K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan, (1994) 2 SCC 630 ], [Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 ] and [Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463 ].” 11. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 503 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “5. The narration of the facts made above, make it clear that the respondents were appointed by the said Dr K.C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner, Guwahati when his services had been terminated and his continuation in service itself was under a cloud and in an inquiry serious lapses had been noticed in the matter of recruitment. It is clear that if after the termination of services of the said Dr K.C. Rakesh, the orders of appointment are issued, such orders are not valid. If such appointment orders are a nullity, the question of observance of principles of natural justice would not arise. It is clear that if after the termination of services of the said Dr K.C. Rakesh, the orders of appointment are issued, such orders are not valid. If such appointment orders are a nullity, the question of observance of principles of natural justice would not arise. Even though, the respondents may not have been a party to the proceedings before the High Court, it is clear that if the appointing authority itself did not have power to make appointment by reason of termination of his services, it is futile to contend that the respondents should have been served with notices in that regard. Dr K.C. Rakesh issued appointment orders on his services having been put an end to on 11-12-1997 by issuance of orders of appointment dated 13-12-1997/15-12-1997. On the pretext that the order of termination of his services had not been served upon him, it cannot be contended that the appointments of the respondents would be valid.” 12. The fact asserted by the respondents in their counter affidavit has not been disputed by the petitioner and as such I find substance in the contention of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with letter no. 11010/NHAI/PIU-JSR/2018/1955 dated 09.10.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with. Consequently, there is no question of passing any order with respect to reinstatement of his service. 14. So far as the petitioner’s prayer for payment of salary with respect to rendering his service on contractual basis for the period from 01.11.2017 to 08.10.2018 is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to an advertisement published by the respondent- NHAI. The respondents have also not disputed the fact that the petitioner satisfactorily worked from 01.11.2017 to 08.10.2018 and as such this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for payment of remuneration for the period he worked under the respondents without there being any fault on his part. 15. Thus, the respondent no. 2 is directed to make payment of admitted monthly remuneration to the petitioner for the aforesaid period of service rendered by him on contractual basis within a period of six weeks from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. Thus, the respondent no. 2 is directed to make payment of admitted monthly remuneration to the petitioner for the aforesaid period of service rendered by him on contractual basis within a period of six weeks from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondent-NHAI is, however, at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officer/officials. 16. The writ petition is partly allowed.