[2025:RJ-JP:10363] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2025/2025 Subhash Chandra Saini S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Saini, aged about 40 Years, Resident of VPO Guda, Tehsil Udaipur Vati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, F.C.I., 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 2. The Executive Director (North), F.C.I Zonal Office, (North), A 2A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.) 3. The General Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Nearby PHQ, Jaipur (Raj.). 4. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer, F.C.I., Bikaner (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with Mr. Keshav Parashar Mr. Ashish Kabra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/03/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been discharged from the post of Assistant Grade III (General). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III (General) under the category of [2025:RJ-JP:10363] (2 of 4) [CW-2025/2025] “Disabled Ex-Serviceman” wherein he was selected, for the said post. Counsel submits that since certain documents were required to be submitted by him with regard to his category i.e Disabled Ex-Serviceman, a notice was given to the petitioner on 06.07.2023 which was duly responded by the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner, he was given appointment vide order dated 26.09.2023, on probation, for a period of one year and after completion of successful probation period, his services were confirmed on 04.10.2024. Counsel submits that one fine morning i.e. on 13.01.2025 the order impugned was passed by which the petitioner was discharged from service, without issuing any notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing. Counsel submits that aforesaid action of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner does not fall within the category of “Disabled Ex- Serviceman”, as per the Clause V(10)/25 of the General Instructions of the advertisement and accordingly, a decision was taken by the respondents to discharge the petitioner from service. Counsel submits that though, the petitioner was granted appointment but the same was granted on probation and his services were never confirmed. Counsel submits that conditional appointment was granted to the petitioner on 26.09.2023 and he could be discharged at any time from service, without assigning any reason by giving a 30 days prior notices or pay and [2025:RJ-JP:10363] (3 of 4) [CW-2025/2025] allowances in lieu thereof. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the impugned order which warrants any interference of this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner claimed himself to be a “Disabled Ex-Serviceman” and under this category, he participated in the process of selection and he was selected. Thereafter, certain documents were required to be submitted by him about his category, for which a notice was issued to him on 06.07.2023. Record further indicates that reply to the aforesaid notice was given by the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III (General) by the respondents vide order dated 26.09.2023. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that on completion of successful period of probation, his services were confirmed by the respondents vide order dated 04.10.2024 and this fact has also been pleaded by him, in his rejoinder, but the respondents have disputed the order of confirmation of the petitioner be as it may. 6. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is “whether the service of the petitioner can be discontinued/terminated/discharged without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing or not?” 7. Bare reading of Clause (2) of the appointment order dated 26.09.2023 indicates that at least 30 days notice is required to be given by the respondents to the petitioner before passing any adverse order but in the instant case, no such notice was ever [2025:RJ-JP:10363] (4 of 4) [CW-2025/2025] served upon the petitioner and straightway the order impugned dated 13.01.2025 was passed, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. It is settled proposition of law that no adverse order can be passed against a person, without issuing any notice or without affording him any opportunity of hearing. But in the instant case, the respondents have done so, which has resulted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. The present writ petition stand allowed. 11. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. 12. Needless to observe that respondents would comply the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. It goes without saying that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, after following due process of law and providing him adequate opportunity of hearing. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/12