HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 7165 of 2020 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Mohan Yadav, learned counsel for the 5th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 28.03.2020 passed by the 4th respondent whereby the 4th respondent has rejected / disapproved appointment of the petitioners. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the petitioners were appointed after subjecting to selection process by the 5th respondent and proposals were sent to the 4th respondent vide covering letter dated 07.02.2019. Surprisingly, the 4th respondent has rejected the selection of the petitioners vide impugned order. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he has specifically made averments at paragraph no.21 for the writ petition for not providing an opportunity of hearing and non-issuance of notice to the petitioners while rejecting the appointment of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 28.03.2020 which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Apart from that, he has also contended that identically selected persons like Bhorik who is closely associated to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria namely Shivchand Ram and two other Class - IV employees were considered and their appointments were approved. But there is no reply to the said averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Hence, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raj Mohan Yadav Zulfiqar Ali And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the impugned order is arbitrary and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the 4th respondent for passing appropriate orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents has submitted that appointment of the petitioners was contrary to Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1921") as the principal has made selection and in fact, interview was also contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1921. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the 4th respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 7. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and counter affidavit, as contended by the petitioners, the 4th respondent has not provided any opportunity to the petitioners while passing the impugned order, apart from that, there is specific averment at paragraph no.21 of the writ petition that identical persons were considered and their appointments were also approved, which was not denied in the counter affidavit, hence the impugned order dated 28.03.2020 passed by the 4th respondent is construed as arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside, remanding the matter to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders once again after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. September 11, 2025 rkg WRIA No. 7165 of 2020 2 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad