R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) In both these writ petitions, parties are common and the facts involved are identical and hence both petitions are being heard disposed of by a common order. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged in both writ petitions and the parties counsel are agreed that the writ petitions may be finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(3.) In Writ Petition No. 11661 of 1989, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21st June, 1989 by which respondent No. 1, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools,] 'Varanasi, Vth Region recalled her order dated 2nd September, 1989 by which the posts of C. T. grade and one post of B. T. C. grade were revived with effect from July, 1987, as these posts stood elapsed for non appointment of teachers. The facts leading to these petitions are that Smt. Madhulika and Smt. Rajeshwari, teachers in B.T.C. grade, were promoted to C.T. Grade by the Committee of Management and the vacancy in three posts of B.T.C. grade were filed by appointing these petitioners. The appointment was duly approved by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 2nd September, 1988 and they started functioning on the s.aid post and were paid salary. The respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 21st June, 1989 recalled its order dated 2nd September, 1988 on the ground that photostat copy of the letter dated 24th August, 1972 which was tiled along with the application for revival, did not appear to be genuine as it was not attested and signed by any Gazetted Officer. It is not disputed that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of explanation or hearing has been given to the petitioners or to the Committee of Management. The document was admittedly filed by the Committee of Management and the petitioners could not be held responsible for the same in any manner. As the petitioners were regularly appointed and the appointments were duly approved by the respondent No., a valuable right was created in their favour which could not be taken away without giving them opportunity of hearing. Further the respondent No. 1 could ascertain the genuineness of the letter dated 24th August, 1972, a copy of which could be obtained from the concerned authorities. As the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, it cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.;