ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Sri M.Krupakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for respondent No.1, Sri S.Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4, and Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2) The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the notification No.3/2023, dated 05.04.2023, issued by respondent No.3, for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in respondent No.2-Society, under general recruitment, the petitioner, being fully eligible and qualified, has applied and appeared for examination in the month of August, 2023. Thereafter, respondent No.3-Board has declared the results wherein the petitioner got selected for the post of PGT (Biological Science) vide proceedings dated 25.07.2024, issued posting orders vide Rc.No.A1/2300/2024/PGT-BS/MZ-1/5, dated 15.02.2024, and she reported to duty on 27.07.2024 before respondent No.4. While so, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings of cancellation of posting orders vide Rc.No.A1/1003/2024-4, dated 21.08.2024. Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed vide proceedings dated 25.07.2024 after undergoing due process of selection. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot cancel petitioner’s posting and appointment orders directly without issuing any notice. It is further contended that the petitioner was sent to Government ENT Hospital, Hyderabad, for medical examination and the competent authority has issued certificate bearing No.7328, dated 28.08.2024, wherein the percentage of disability is clearly mentioned as 41% which means suffering from hearing impairment categorized as II (a). Earlier also, the petitioner got examined in Government Hospital at Khammam and the authorities have issued the certificate for person with disability vide Certificate No.22280360120119302, dated 21.01.2015. Further, under G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009, the guidelines and procedure are prescribed for evaluation of various disabilities and for certification for speech and hearing disability under category of hearing and impairment, as per which, the age of impairment is 40% to 50%. As per the certificate dated 21.01.2015, the percentage of impairment is 54% and the certificate dated 28.08.2024 issued by competent authorities of ENT Hospital also clearly shows the percentage of impairment as 41%. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in terminating the services of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in terminating the services of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 3.1) Learned senior counsel further submits that in the impugned order it is stated that the hearing impaired persons so selected for the post were referred to Medical Board and received report vide letter dated 05.06.2024 observing that the petitioner has sustained 29% hearing disability instead of minimum prescribed 40% of hearing disability in terms of G.O.Ms.No.31, Women Development Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (DW) Department, dated 01.12.2009. The said certificate dated 05.06.2024 was not even supplied to the petitioner. Relying upon the said certificate dated 05.06.2024, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2024 without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that earlier, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Panchayat Secretary vide Proc.No.P6/2948/2018, dated 11.04.2019, under Hearing Handicapped (HH) Female category. Further, as per Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (in short ‘Act of 2016’), the earlier disability Certificate dated 21.01.2015 issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009, basing on which the petitioner was given employment in the Panchayat Raj Department, holds good and no fresh certificate is required as it is a permanent disablement and as per Section 20 of the Act of 2016, the authorities are suppose to follow the said certificate. Apart from that, G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009, wherein the categories of Speech and Hearing disability are mentioned, clearly stipulates that in the event any fresh medical certificate is required, the respondents have to take Pure Tone Average (PTA) test but not BERA test. However, the petitioner herein was subjected to BERA test whereas in case of one Akuthota Vijaya Rekha shown at Sl.No.4 and two others were subjected to PTA test, which is mandatory for all, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009. 3.2) Learned senior counsel has further stated that the petitioner has also approached the ENT Hospital from where the respondents have obtained the certificate dated 05.06.2024. The ENT Hospital has again issued the certificate dated 28.08.2024 assessing the disability as 41%. In fact, the certificate obtained by the petitioner from Gandhi Hospital shows the disability as more than 50%. 3.2) Learned senior counsel has further stated that the petitioner has also approached the ENT Hospital from where the respondents have obtained the certificate dated 05.06.2024. The ENT Hospital has again issued the certificate dated 28.08.2024 assessing the disability as 41%. In fact, the certificate obtained by the petitioner from Gandhi Hospital shows the disability as more than 50%. It is further submitted that in the proceedings dated 05.06.2024 issued by the Medical Board, it was mentioned that one candidate by name Swapnila shown at Sl.No.8 was absent for BERA test. Inspite of the same, she was considered by the respondents and continued in service whereas the petitioner was discriminated and her services were terminated without issuing any notice. Thus, the respondents have acted contrary to G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009 and also the provisions of Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is further submitted that the certificates submitted by the petitioner dated 28.08.2024 and 21.01.2015 issued under G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009, clearly disclose that the petitioner satisfied the benchmark disability i.e. not less than 40% as stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019. Learned senior counsel has strenuously contended that the petitioner being the State Government employee working since 2019 has been arbitrarily terminated by the respondents contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab , [ (2000) 3 SCC 239 ] wherein it is clearly stated that probationer or temporary servant cannot be terminated without notice. It is further contended that in view of Section 20 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the certificate dated 21.01.2015 has to be accepted and the petitioner cannot be terminated, which action of the respondents is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009, and also the provisions of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 and allow the writ petition. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel while admitting the facts that the petitioner has applied for the post of PGT (Biological Science), appeared for written examination and as per merit she was called for certificate verification on 11.02.2024 against PWD (HH) category and the provisional list was notified on 12.02.2024. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel while admitting the facts that the petitioner has applied for the post of PGT (Biological Science), appeared for written examination and as per merit she was called for certificate verification on 11.02.2024 against PWD (HH) category and the provisional list was notified on 12.02.2024. Immediately thereafter she was appointed as PGT (Biological Science) vide proceedings No.A1/2300/2024/PGT-BS/MZ-I/5, dated 15.02.2024, and posted as PGT (Bio Science) at TTW Residential School (G), Medak District, in Multi zone-I vide proceedings dated 25.07.2024. Further, HH persons selected for the post of PGT (Bio Science) were referred to the Appellate Medical Authority i.e., Superintendent, ENT Hospital, Hyderabad, for medical examination. After medical examination, the medical reports were sent in sealed cover vide letter No.401/Audiology/ ENT/2024, dated 05.06.2024, confirming that the petitioner possessed only 29% of Hearing disability instead of minimum prescribed 40% of Hearing disability, as per para (3) to Annexure-I of G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009. In view of the same, the appointing authority has rightly issued the proceedings dated 21.08.2024 cancelling the appointment order dated 15.02.2024 issued to the petitioner by invoking sub-para 6 of para-IV of the Notification No.3/2023, dated 05.04.2023. Therefore, the respondents are justified in terminating the services of the petitioner and there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that after selection, the petitioner was referred to Medical Board along with other selected candidates and after medical examination, the Medical Board sent a report/ certificate to the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 05.06.2024. A perusal of the said certificate dated 05.06.2024 clearly discloses that the petitioner was subjected to BERA test whereas three other candidates viz., Akuthota Vijaya Rekha, Mangali Krishnana and M.Nanda Kumari, were subjected to Pure Tone Average Test, which is mandatory as per annexure-I appended to G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 01.12.2009, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder for better adjudication. B.SPEECH & HEARING DISABILITY 1. Definition of Hearing : …. 2. Categories of Hearing Impairment. B.SPEECH & HEARING DISABILITY 1. Definition of Hearing : …. 2. Categories of Hearing Impairment. Category Type of Impairment DB Level Speech Discrimination % Age of Impairment I Mild hearing Impairment DB 26 to 40 db in better ear 80 to 100% in better ear Less than 40% to 50% II(a) Moderate Hearing 41 to 60 db in better ear 50 to 80% in better ear Less than 40% to 50% II (b) Serve hearing Impairment 61 to 70 db better ear 40 to 50% in better ear 51% to 70% III a) Profound hearing Impairment 71 to 90 db Less than 40% in better ea 71% to 100% c) Total deafness 91 db and above/in better ear/to hearing Very poor discrimination 100% 7) From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was subjected to BERA test, as evident from the certificate dated 05.06.2025, in contravention of Annexure-I appended to G.OMs.No.31, dated 01.12.2009. No specific reasons are forthcoming from the respondents for showing discrimination towards the petitioner while subjecting her to BERA medical examination. Further, it is to be noted that one Swapnila, shown at Sl.No.8, was absent for medical examination, however, she is being continued as PGT. The counter of the respondents is silent in this regard. Therefore, the said actions of the respondents clearly amount to discrimination and therefore liable to be interfered with. 8) A perusal of the material on record, more particularly, the material papers appended to reply affidavit i.e. the copy of selected list-2018 of Khammam District Junior Panchayat Secretary shows that the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.262 and got selected under HH Female Category and appointed as Panchayat Secretary vide Proceedings No.P6/2948/2018, dated 11.04.2019 and she worked in the said post till the date of her resignation on 29.06.2024 and thereafter she has joined in the present post i.e. PGT (Biological Science) on 27.07.2024. However, the impugned cancellation orders were issued after 27 days thereafter i.e. on 21.08.2024. 9) Be that as it may. As per Rule 20 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the validity of certificate of disability issued under the Repealed Act i.e. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Ppportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, shall continue to be valid after commencement of the Act of 2016, for the period specified in the said certificate. As per Rule 20 of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the validity of certificate of disability issued under the Repealed Act i.e. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Ppportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, shall continue to be valid after commencement of the Act of 2016, for the period specified in the said certificate. Here, it is pertinent to note that in the certificate dated 21.01.2015 issued by Medical Board i.e. Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam, validity of the said certificate was not specified. Therefore, the certificate dated 21.01.2015, basing on which the petitioner was earlier appointed to the post of Junior Panchayat Secretary, has to be construed as still valid. 10) Further, admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned cancellation order dated 21.08.2024, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.P. Ahuja’s case (referred supra) , has held as under: “7. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice.” 11) In view of the above settled proposition of law, the action of the respondents in issuing impugned cancellation order dated 21.08.2024 without issuing any notice to the petitioner cannot be sustained. 12) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the impugned cancellation order dated 21.08.2024 is not sustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside. 13) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned cancellation order dated 21.08.2024 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages on the principle ‘no work no pay’. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.