R. R. K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage. The facts giving rise to this petition are that in the institution Uchchattar Madhyamik Balika Vidyalaya, Kayamganj, Farrukhabad office of the Head Mistress fall vacant on account of resignation of the permanent Head Mistress. On this vacancy petitioner was appointed as Head Mistress by order dated 12-9-1986. The appointment of petitioner as Head Mistress was approved by Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, respondent No. 1 by order dated 7-11-1988. The petitioner was functioning on the basis of the aforesaid order as Head Mistress. However, by order dated 1-2-1990 Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the approval granted on 7-11-1988 in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the respondent No. 4 was approved for being appointed as Head Mistress. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner was senior-most teacher and she was appointed by the Authorised Controller as Head Mistress which was duty approved by the respondent No. 1. However, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the order in her favour was cancelled treating the respondent No. 4 as senior-most teacher. The necessary averments to this effect have been made in Fara 27 of the writ petition. The reply of Para 27 have been made in Para 19 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No 4. In Para 19 of the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the opportunity was given to the petitioner by the management but the case set up by the petitioner that no opportunity was given by the respondent No. 1 has not been controverted. In view of this it is clear that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was appointed and was duly approved by the respondent No. 1. In such a situation she ought to have been given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 is this bad and cannot be sustained.
(3.) However, the petitioner had retired on 30-6-1994 and in view' of this only questioned will remain with regard to the payment of salary during which the petitioner was not allowed to work as Head Mistress on the basis of the impugned order.;