AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Barin Ghosh, C.J.—From the facts stated in the petition it appears that a representation made by Respondent No. 4 was accepted by Respondent No. 2 and, accordingly, Respondent No. 3 was directed to cancel its decision, by which the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Pharmacy) of Respondent No. 3. There is also No. dispute, atleast none of the Respondents are disputing, that while considering the representation of Respondent No. 4 and taking a decision thereon, Respondent No. 2 did not give any notice to the Petitioner or an opportunity of hearing.
It is settled law that No. one can affect civil right of a citizen without giving him an opportunity of hearing. In the circumstances, the decision of Respondent No. 2 impugned in the petition is set aside. The representation of Respondent No. 4 is remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for consideration which, as aforesaid, must be made only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
This disposes of the writ petition.