JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.7.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi respondent No. 1. Subsequently a prayer has been added for quashing the order dated 31.3,2000, passed by the Director of Education.
2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as C.T. Grade teacher in the institution of respondent No. 3. His ad hoc appointment as C.T. grade teacher was initially approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 17.11.1984. The approval was thereafter extended upto 30.6.1986 vide order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 10.10.1985. Thereafter, when the appointment of the petitioner was not further extended by the Committee of Management, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15176 of 1987, Ratnakar Chaubey v. District Inspector of Schools, in which initially an interim order was passed on 23:11.1987, but was subsequently vacated on 18.3.1988. In the said writ petition respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar Verma, had been impleaded and had also filed counter-affidavit. On 5.12.1987, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order that the temporary appointment of the petitioner was approved till the regular appointment was made by the Commission or the approval was granted on the temporary appointment of Rajendra Kumar Verma, respondent No. 4. However, vide order dated 28.4.1988 of the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of C.T. grade teacher.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar Verma filed Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988, praying for a direction for payment of salary as C.T. grade teacher and to permit him to continue on such post and also for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 5.12.1987. In the said writ petition Ratnakar Chaubey, the petitioner herein, was impleaded as respondent No. 3. Admittedly no interim order had been passed in the said writ petition and counter and rejoinder-affidavits had been exchanged. Thereafter, the said Rajendra Kumar Verma filed another Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990, Rajendra Kumar Verma v. District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi and Ors., praying that his representation dated 19.2.1990 pending before the Deputy Director of Education, may be disposed of by the said authority. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 10.8.1990 with a direction to the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi, to dispose of the said representation of the petitioner within three months. In the said writ petition, filed by respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar Verma, the petitioner herein Ratnakar Chaubey had not been impleaded as respondent nor had it been disclosed that earlier Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988, was already pending with the same prayer as had been made in the representation before the Deputy Director of Education. In compliance of the Court's order dated 10.8.1990, the Deputy Director of Education had passed the impugned order dated 2.7.1991 holding that the petitioner Ratnakar Chaubey had been reverted back to his original post of clerk on 1.7.1986 ; that the petitioner had further been suspended on 1.7.1988 ; and that he had not worked as Assistant Teacher in the college since July, 1986, and thereafter, it was directed by the Deputy Director of Education that respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar Verma shall be entitled for payment of salary with effect from the date of his joining, i.e., 11.7.1986.
4. I have heard Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri D.S.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and have also perused the record including the impugned orders.
5. Admittedly, the impugned orders have been passed without the petitioner having been issued any notice by the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi. The respondent No. 4 had already filed Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988, which was pending and counter and rejoinder-affidavits had been exchanged and no interim order had been passed. With the same prayer, thereafter he filed a representation in the year 1990 before the Deputy Director of Education and after filing a writ petition, without impleading the petitioner as respondent, obtained an order dated 10.8.1990 for disposal of his representation by the Deputy Director of Education. In the counter-affidavit, the said respondent No. 4 Rajendra Kumar Verma has stated that the representation had been filed on the oral observation made by the Bench hearing Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1988, that he should approach the Deputy Director of Education by way of filing representation. The said explanation does not appear to be satisfactory. When the matter was pending before this Court, the subsequent writ petition filed by respondent No. 4, without disclosing the pendency of the earlier writ petition, and getting an order for disposal of the representation from the authority without impleading the petitioner, who was a necessary party, was not justified and it only goes to show that respondent No. 4 had concealed material information from this Court while filing the Writ Petition of 1990, which was disposed of on 10.8.1990. The Deputy Director of Education by the impugned order dated 2.7.1991, has recorded findings against the petitioner Ratnakar Chaubey without even issuing notice to him. It is a well established principle of natural justice that a party against whom order is being passed, has a right to be heard. It may be relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this writ petition and after passing of the impugned order dated 2.7.1991, since respondent No. 4 was not being paid salary, he made a representation before the State Backward Class Commission, which directed the Director of Education to examine the matter and in pursuance thereof another order dated 31.3.2000, had been passed by the Director of Education reiterating the order of the Deputy Director of Education. The said order has also been challenged in this writ petition by way of an amendment application, which has been allowed. From the record, it is clear that both the orders dated 2.7.1.991 and 31.3.2000, passed by the Deputy Director and Director of Education respectively suffer from the same vice, that is both the orders had been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and are thus liable to be set aside.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view the impugned order dated 2.7.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Education as well as the order dated 31.3.2000, passed by the Director of Education are not sustainable in law and are hereby quashed.
7. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.