On the basis of the same, he pointed out Section 4(4) contemplates that the appointment in contravention of Section 4(1) is not void, but it will be voidable. This goes to the root of the matter and had it been a case where the law declares it would be void, it would have been different In conjunction with this aspect of the matter, learned senior counsel would complain again that no notice was served on the appellant before the order of termination was issued. He would, undoubtedly, point out that under the Act and the Rules, authorities have purported to find that the appellant did not deserve appointment under the quota of reservation made for the Scheduled Tribe community. He would submit that appellant was at the time, under the impression that the appellant whose caste is Talawara, was to be treated as belonging to the 'Hindu Tokare Koli' community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, he took us to the judgment of this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others (supra). He would point out that the principles enunciated in the said case countenancing recovery of the benefits received may not be applicable. In this regard, he harnessed the plea that there was no fraud practiced by the appellant in securing the appointment in question and the Scheduled Tribe certificate. Therefore, this would warrant his submission that no recovery should be made. In fact, besides pointing out that even the termination was illegal as it was done without following the principles of nature justice, he would point out that had the appellant been provided with an opportunity, she could have placed circumstances which may have dissuaded the authorities from issuing the order of termination. Another argument which he raised is based on Rule 7B of the Rules. Rule 7B reads as follows. It is necessary to distinguish between two kinds of invalidity. The one kind is where the invalidity is so grave that the list is a nullity altogether. In which case there is no need for an order to quash it.