ORDER : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2001 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) by which the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 against his termination order dated 10.09.1998 has been quashed and the order for his reinstatement in service has been passed along-with pay/allowances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a selection process was initiated by the respondent-Department for appointment on the post of Teacher wherein the respondent No.4 participated. At the time of selection process, the Representative of the Department of Education was present and the respondent No.4 was selected on the post of Teacher and appointment was given to him on 11.03.1998. Counsel submits that the appointment of the respondent No.4 was approved by the Government and he continued in service till 10.09.1998. Counsel submits that in the meantime, a letter was received by him from the District Education Officer, (Secondary) First, Bhilwara, by which the approval order of his appointment, dated 04.03.1998 was cancelled. Counsel submits that in consequence thereof, the appointment order of respondent No.4 was cancelled vide order dated 10.09.1998 by the petitioner. Counsel submits that certain complaints were received by the Government with regard to the irregular appointments and violation of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short, “the Rules of 1993”) in the selection process. Counsel submits that a Committee was constituted and certain recommendations were made by the said Committee wherein it was observed by the said Committee that the policy of roster point was invalid, at the time of initiation of selection process. Counsel submits that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee, the Government passed an order of cancelling the approval for the appointment of the respondent No.4, but these facts were overlooked by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2001. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that selection process was initiated by the petitioner for appointment on various posts including Teacher and Lower Division Clerk. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that selection process was initiated by the petitioner for appointment on various posts including Teacher and Lower Division Clerk. At the time of the said selection process, representative of the Department of Education was present and the petitioner was selected for the post of Teacher and thereafter, the District Education Officer granted approval for the appointment of the respondent No.4 vide order dated 04.03.1998 and on 11.03.1998, the respondent No.4 was given appointment. One fine morning, his appointment was cancelled by the petitioner vide order dated 10.09.1998, which was an aftermath of the letter/ order dated 14.03.1998 by which the approval of the appointment order of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Education Officer. 6. The entire action of the petitioner was based upon the order/ letter dated 14.03.1998, but the aforesaid order is silent with regard to the reasons as to why the approval was withdrawn and cancelled, by the District Education Officer. 7. This Court issued notice to the Department of Education and after receipt of the said notice, the reply has been submitted on their behalf, enclosing the report of enquiry conducted by the Members of the Committee, wherein a finding was recorded that the selection process was initiated by the petitioner-institution in violation of the provision contained under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1993 and irregular appointments were given. The aforesaid report of the Committee is perused by this Court which is silent with regard to the reason for removal from service of the respondent No.4. The conclusion was confined to the point that the petitioner should remain careful in future with regard to following the provisions contained under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1993. 8. The District Education Officer has passed the impugned order dated 14.03.1998 without assigning any reasons for cancelling the approval of appointment order of the respondent No.4 and no reasons have been assigned for the same. Until and unless any justified reasons are reflected in the order, such order cannot be passed, that too without issuing any notice to the respondent No.4, hence, such act on the part of the District Education Officer has resulted in violation of principle of natural justice. 9. Until and unless any justified reasons are reflected in the order, such order cannot be passed, that too without issuing any notice to the respondent No.4, hence, such act on the part of the District Education Officer has resulted in violation of principle of natural justice. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 has held that, opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision is considered to be necessary requirement. This principle of natural justice applies to quasi-judicial as well as administrative authorities because where the administrative actions may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking any decision is necessary. 10. In the instant matter, the recruitment process was initiated by the petitioner-management after getting appointment from the District Education Officer, Department of Education and the respondent No.4 was duly selected by the regular recruitment process in the presence of the representatives of the Department of Education and thereupon, appointment was given to him, after the approval by the District Education Officer, Department of Education and the respondent No.4 remained in service for some time thus, he got vested right to continue in service, but all of a sudden, the approval for his appointment was withdrawn by the State. Hence, at this stage, after appointment of the respondent No.4, the State-respondent cannot be allowed to snatch his appointment only because at the time of issuing the advertisement, the policy regarding roster points pertaining to reservation of the reserved candidates was not reflected. It is not the case of the petitioner-management or the State Government that appointment was given to the respondent No.4 against the vacancy of the reserved category candidates. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that once a person is granted appointment, he acquires a vested right to continue on the said post and any order/ action of the Department which may result into civil consequences should be passed after affording opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 was not heard when the approval to the appointment was withdrawn. 12. After getting appointment on the post of Teacher, the respondent No.4 got the vested right to continue on the said post. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 was not heard when the approval to the appointment was withdrawn. 12. After getting appointment on the post of Teacher, the respondent No.4 got the vested right to continue on the said post. Appointment was given to him on the basis of the recommendations made by the representative of the Department of Education and approval granted by the District Education Officer, hence, under these circumstances, the whole action on the part of District Education Officer, while passing the order dated14.03.1998 was uncalled for. 13. Though, the Tribunal has not taken note of these factual aspects of the matter, but quashed the termination order of the respondent No.4 by issuing directions to the petitioner- management for his reinstatement in service, yet, this Court is conscious of the fact that there was no illegality on the part of the petitioner to terminate the services of the respondent No.4, as the order dated 10.09.1998 was passed by the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 14.03.1998 passed by the District Education Officer by which the approval of the appointment of the respondent No.4 was cancelled and subsequently, the post was abolished. 14. The respondent No.4 has been made to suffer at the instance of the State Government, i.e., the District Education Officer due to which he has been deprived from continuing in service, but looking to the fact that more than 26 years have passed, after passing of the impugned order of termination of service, no order for his reinstatement can be issued at this stage. Now, at such stage, reinstatement is deemed to be impractical and impossible, after a long span of 26 years, hence, the matter can be settled by awarding compensation to the aggrieved employee in lieu of reinstatement. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant adequate amount of compensation to the respondent No.4 in lieu of his reinstatement and accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondent-State, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.4 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. 16. Since, the respondent No.4 is unrepresented before this Court and he is not aware about passing of this order, Office is directed to send a copy of this order at his residential address, as mentioned in the memo of cause title of the instant writ petition. 17. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.