The principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, apply to all decisions that affect a person's rights or interests.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The appellant is a registered Non-Government Educational Institute and has been accorded sanction by the NCTE to conduct B.Ed. Courses. The State of Rajasthan granted administrative sanction to create on temporary basis two posts of Reader.

2. The respondent applied for being appointed as a Reader and vide letter of offer dated 11.9.1999 was offered appointment as a Reader. The letter records that it was being issued pursuant to he being selected by the Selection Committee and that he would be placed in the pay scale Rs. 9000-300-14400 plus dearness allowance and the house rent allowance. At the initiation basic pay would be Rs. 9000/- p.m. The letter also records that the offer was on contract basis, and suffice would it be to clarify at this stage itself that meaningfully read, evinced by the fact that the respondent was placed in a pay scale and every year increment in the time scale of pay was granted, the letter of offering appointment has to be treated as one offering appointment on temporary basis and not on contract basis. Further, the letter does not refer to any fixed period of service. It records that the appointment was to the post duly sanctioned by the Government of Rajasthan.

3. The respondent continued to work as a Reader till when on 31.8.2007 i.e. after 7 years of working service was terminated. One month salary in sum of 23,727/- was tendered by way of a cheque. The order terminating the service does not record any reasons.

4. The respondent filed a writ petition pleading that his appointment, albeit temporary, has continued for 7 years and since the post in question continued to exist there was no reason to terminate his service.

5. The appellants filed a reply stating that on 24.8.2007 a female colleague named Sarita Sharma had made a complaint against the respondent who was asked to submit his explanation thereto before an enquiry committee constituted. The notice was issued on 24.8.2007 itself. Required to appear before the Enquiry Committee and respond to the notice, the respondent submitted his explanation on 25.8.2007 and denied the allegations made against him in the complaint. After hearing the respondent the Committee submitted the report to the Principal on the same day i.e. 25.8.2007 and based thereon service of the respondent was terminated.

6. Vide impugned order dated 24th January, 2008, dealing with the preliminary submission whether the appellant was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and holding that it was, the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned termination order dated 31.8.2007. The reasoning is as under:-

"11. In first complaint it is alleged that petitioner verbally quarreled with one Miss Santosh Jain and that is why she lodged a complaint of petitioner's mis-behaviour with her. The another complaint is a complaint lodged by one colleague of the petitioner working in the same institution, which appears to be also with respect to some utterance of the words to Sarita Sharma by the petitioner. The explanation was sought from the petitioner on the same day with respect to the incident which took place with Smt. Sarita Sharma at about 10.35 PM in the college premises and the committee was constituted on the same day. Be that as it may be, the explanation was called from the petitioner at 3.45 PM and he was asked to submit his explanation by 5.00 PM on the same day. The allegations were denied by the petitioner in writing and, thereafter, it is alleged that on the same day i.e., on 25.8.2007 inquiry was completed and in the inquiry report it is mentioned that the petitioner admitted his guilt but to hide the truth, he denied the allegations in his reply. In the inquiry report it is stated that one Antia Tetarwal Ex-B.Ed student was also present at the time of incident and she corroborated and supported the allegation of Smt. Sarita Sharma. The inquiry committee even observed that in explanation, the petitioner gave names of some persons, but