Cancellation of appointments without affording an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

The petitioners applied for the post of Rural Health Coordinator following an advertisement dated 18.07.2016

After participating in the recruitment process conducted by CG Vyapam, a merit list was published where the petitioners were placed on the waiting list

On 24.11.2017, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Surguja, issued appointment orders in favor of the petitioners

However, on 23.05.2018, respondent No. 2 issued an order cancelling these appointments on the grounds that they were made after the validity of the waiting list had expired and were contrary to conditions No. 12 and 16 of the advertisement

The petitioners challenged this cancellation, asserting they were not granted an opportunity of hearing prior to the termination of their services

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioners' appointment orders without affording an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).

It relied on the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 9 SCC 700, which held that an order of cancellation of appointment cannot be passed by an authority without affording the affected parties an opportunity to be heard, as such an omission vitiates the order

The court examined the procedural history and noted that the petitioners had already been appointed and were working in their respective posts—protected by interim orders during the pendency of the litigation

The court found that because the petitioners had been appointed pursuant to a competitive process, a legal right had accrued in their favor

While the State argued that the appointments were technically deficient due to the expiration of the waiting list, the court determined that the technical merits of the appointment did not exempt the State from following due process

Upon perusal of the record, the court concluded that the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 was passed in "utter violation of the principles of natural justice" because no hearing was provided to the petitioners before their rights were extinguished

The Court held that the failure to provide a hearing rendered the order legally unsustainable

The respondents were granted liberty to take a fresh decision regarding the petitioners' appointments after affording them a due opportunity of hearing, to be concluded within 180 days

The court further directed that the interim orders protecting the petitioners' service shall continue for the duration of this 180-day period