R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 here filed a writ petition for getting the order dated 30.6.1994 quashed. Further prayer for a writ of mandamus restraining the appellant herein from functioning as Principal of the College and also for a direction to the respondents to handover the charge of the office of the Principal to the respondent No. 2, have also been made. In that writ petition Km. Vidyottma Gupta has been impleaded as respondent No. 1. That writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on 6.7.1994. It is against this judgment that this appeal has been filed by the present appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rakesh Bahadur, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Km. Nirmala Gupta. As requested by the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) GRIEVANCE of the appellant as put though his learned counsel, is that the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 has been allowed without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. This fact that neither any notice nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant, who was impleaded as respondent No. 1 to the writ petition, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. It is settled position that no writ petition can be allowed and no order adverse to a person can be passed without giving him/her an opportunity of being heard and if any order is passed in violation of principle of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside. Although in the impugned order it has been mentioned that writ petition is disposed of finally, but a perusal of the judgment makes it clear that writ petition has been allowed. As mentioned above the writ petition was allowed without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1 however, contended that the proper remedy for the appellant is to move an application before the learned Single Judge for getting the judgment impugned in the appeal recalled on the ground that the same was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Undoubtedly this was one of the course which could have been adopted by the appellant, but merely because it is open to the party to move an application for recall of the judgment, the right to file an appeal, which is provided by the statute, is not taken away. In such cases two remedies are available to the person aggrieved and it is open to him/her to avail of any of these remedies. As admittedly the impugned judgment, which adversely affect the appellant, has been passed without giving her any notice or opportunity of being heard, the judgment has to be set -aside and the matter has to be remanded.;