The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with rules of natural justice, especially when the order affects the rights of a citizen.

1. The petitioners challenge legality and validity of the order dated 22-22005 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioners working as Shiksha Kannis were removed from services and the order dated 27-7-2004 (Annexure P/2) whereunder the petitioners after having completed three years probation period were not regularized.

2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25-7 -1998 (Annexure P/3) the petitioners were appointed on the post Shiksha Karmis Grade - I, II & III under the provisions of "Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Kanni Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharte Niyam 1998" by appointment letter dated 25-9-1998 (Annexure P/6). Subsequently by order dated 1-5-1999 (Annexure P /7) the appointment order was modified to the extent that the appointment was initially on a probation period of three years. The petitioners completed their probation period after completion of three years. Services of the petitioners were not regularized, but the petitioners were permitted to continue in service till 22-2- 2005 when the impugned order was passed. Thus, this petition.

3. Mr. TIwari, learned Sr. counsel with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have completed the probation period of three years. The petitioners could not be regularized as no formal order of regularization was passed. The petitioners were also not communicated any adverse remark or notice during the period. The petitioners made their representations for regularization of their services. The respondent No.1, instead of considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization, removed the petitioners from services without issuing any show cause notice or enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to put-forward their cases. Mr. Tiwari would further contend that the appointment of the petitioners was in accordance with law through proper selection and as such the appointments of the petitioners were regular and proper. Mr. Tiwari would further contend that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petitioners be reinstated in service with consequential benefits and regularization thereof.

4. Per contra, Mr. Agrawal. learned Sr. counsel with Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 would submit that admittedly the petitioners were selected through proper selection process in accordance with law. However, on enquiry it was found that the petitioners were not properly qualified to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Kermis Grade-I, II & III respectively. An internal enquiry was conducted on the ground that since the appointment of the candidates was on account of lack of qualification, without affording an opportunity of hearing, the petitioners were removed from services. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the Secretary, Environment and Urban Development on 21-9-2004 for regularization of the services of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 vide letter dated 19-10-2004 intimated the respondent No.1 that in enquiry conducted on 27-10-1998, the appointment ofthe petitioners were found irregular, therefore, steps be taken to remove them from services. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 on the basis of letters dated 19-10-2004 (Annexure R-I-3) and 17-2-2005 (Annexure R-I-5) took a decision to remove the petitioners from services on account of irregularities found in the internal enquiry report dated 27-10-1998. Thus, it was not necessary to issue show cause notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as their appointments were found irregular for want of requisite qualification.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Without going into the contents of the report, it is admittedly found that the removal order which visits with civil consequences was passed wi