HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13946 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sharad Pathak learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pawan Kumar Pandey learned counsel for petitioner, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.4. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24th September, 2025, whereby petitioner's services as Assistant Teacher have been terminated. It is submitted that earlier petitioner was provided service termination notice dated 15th September, 2025 with the allegation that petitioner had been granted appointment on the basis of incorrect educational certificates on the ground that petitioner did not have requisite qualifications as on the last date of application for recruitment on the post. It is submitted that only a week's time was granted to petitioner to file a reply and by means of letter dated 19th September, 2025, petitioner had sought further time to submit his reply in view of the fact that he would have to obtain relevant documents from the institution concerned. It is submitted that instead of providing time to petitioner, the impugned order has been passed on an ex-parte basis. 3. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitione with the submission that adequate time had been provided to petitioner for providing his reply to the allegations levelled against him and it is in these circumstances that he failed to submit a reply that the authority concerned was left with no other option but to pass an impugned order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey, Priya Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Avinash Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed on an ex parte basis placing reliance on reports which have been submitted to the District Basic Education Officer. It is also evident that by means of letter dated 19th September 2025, petitioner had sought additional time to furnish a reply to the notice, primarily on the ground that he would require some time to obtain relevant documentation. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions submits that all the relevant documentation is now complete and a reply would be submitted in case such a liberty is granted. 6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the impugned order dated 24th September 2025 has been passed on an ex parte basis . The same is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to the petitioner to furnish a reply to the notice dated 15th September 2025, within a period of 15 days from today. The concerned authority is thereafter granted liberty to pass orders afresh considering reply submitted by petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing by adhering to the principles of natural justice. 7. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. December 2, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 13946 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench