JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Both these writ petitions arise out of common facts and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment at this stage.
2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7374 of 1988 has been filed for a direction to the respondents to make the payment of salary to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13553 of 1988 has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.4.1988 whereby the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, has cancelled the approval earlier granted for the transfer of the petitioner.
3. The facts in brief relevant for the decision of these writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed as permanent Assistant Teacher in Junior High School in the year 1981. His appointment was initially made in Baba Mohan Ram Bharat Singh Kisan Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Peer Nagar, district Ghaziabad, which was duly approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad. In 1987, the petitioner moved an application for being transferred to Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shyampur Jatt, Post Kithor, district Ghaziabad. After obtaining the consent of the management of both the institutions, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, on 30.10.1987, passed an order under Rule 18 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, approving the transfer of the petitioner to Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shyamput Jatt. In view of such approval having been granted, the petitioner joined the said institution as Assistant Teacher on 1.11.1987. Subsequently, an objection was raised by the Accounts Officer working in the office of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad and vide communication dated 2.1.1988, he wrote to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, that the order dated 30.10.1987 may be reviewed and cancelled. However, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 14.1.1988 turned down the request of the Accounts Officer as contained in his letter dated 2.1.1988. Since, despite the transfer of the petitioner having been duly approved by the competent authority, the respondents were not paying the salary to the petitioner, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7374 of 1988. In the said writ petition, on 21.7.1988, an interim direction had been issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay salary to the petitioner or show cause. It has been stated that in response to the said interim order, the salary of the petitioner is being regularly paid.
4. However, on 6.4.1988, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, on instructions from the Assistant Director of Education, cancelled the approval for transfer of the petitioner granted on 30.10.1987. Hence Writ Petition No. 13553 of 1988 had been filed for quashing the said order dated 6.4.1988. In the said writ petition an interim order had been passed on 19.7.1988 whereby the operation of the order dated 6.4.1988 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, had been stayed.
5. I have heard Sri I. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It may be relevant to mention that despite 16 years having been passed, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the order dated 6.4.1988 are two fold. Firstly, the said order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, secondly that the said order passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, is wholly without jurisdiction.
7. So far as the first ground is concerned, it has been specifically averred in the writ petition that no notice or opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner before passing the said order which has not been denied. By the earlier order dated 30.10.1987, whereby permission had been granted for the transfer of the petitioner, a right had vested in favour of the petitioner. It is well-settled that once an order is passed in favour of a person, the same cannot be cancelled or recalled without giving an opportunity of hearing as the same would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the said order deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.
8. So far as the second ground is concerned, since the institution to which the petitioner had been transferred, had been upgraded as a High School for which necessary permission had been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad on 17.2.1988, thus, it has been contended that after the said date the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 had become applicable and the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 6.4.1988. The said contention also has force. Since it has not been denied that the institution had been upgraded as a High School on 17.2.1988, hence in my view the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad was not competent to pass the impugned order. The impugned order dated 6.4.1988 is thus liable to be set aside on this ground also.
9. As regards the prayer for payment of salary to the petitioner, since the transfer of the petitioner was validly made under the Rules of 1988 which were applicable at the time when the transfer order had been passed and the same was also duly approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad, the petitioner is entitled for payment of his salary as Assistant Teacher.
10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 6.4.1988 is quashed and it is directed that the respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is paid his salary in accordance with law. However, there small be no order as to costs.