HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12449 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed while laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 9.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher has been dismissed. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2010 as Assistant Teacher in Basic Education Department and she kept on working to the satisfaction of her superiors and her work and conduct was above board during the said period. He submitted that on one fine morning, the District Basic Education Officer has passed the impugned order whereby observing that on the basis of forged academic records placed at the time of appointment, the petitioner has procured the appointment and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner has been turned down. He submitted that no show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner and she has been deprived of oppotunity of hearing which is the principle of natural justice. He submitted that in fact, the documents are not forged but on a fake complaint of one Devendra Singh, the proceedings has been instituted and the services of the petitioner has been cancelled. Concluding his argument, he submits that whole procedure adopted while passing the impugned order vitiates in the eyes of law, thus, the same is unsustainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the matter on merits but they do not dispute that prior to passing of order impugned dated 9.10.2025, no show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties particularly the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been associated prior to passing the order impugned dated 9.10.2025 and no show cause Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey, Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Suraj Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) notice has been issued to the petitioner, which is undisputed, thus, the whole proceedings is unlawful and against the settled proposition of law. Consequently, the order dated 9.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 is hereby quashed. The District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi is given liberty to proceed afresh, if he so desires and pass order afresh after associating the present petitioner in proceedings. The petition is allowed at the admission stage, with the consent of the parties. October 17, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 12449 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench