Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31652 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2776 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kavita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.3-Distinct Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2.By the aforesaid order, claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was rejected. 3.Petitioner also approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 16849 of 2019, which was finally allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024. Operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:- "19. The said fact surprised the Court also as to why and under what circumstances, the documents were accepted by the respondent without verifying the signature on the same. Once the documents have been submitted by the petitioner in support of her candidature, which were duly signed except the Experience Certificate (at Page No.41 of the original record), why have the respondents accepted the same, which shows the mala-fide intention of the respondents. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, not a word has been whispered about the same 20. In view of the facts and circumstance of case, the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned only to verify as under. 22. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.3 to verify the Experience Certificate, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.4, at Page Nos. 51 & 52 of the present writ petition from the institution of its issuance within one month from today. If it is found to be correct/genuine, the petitioner shall be permitted to discharge her duty as Headmistress. 23. Further, Mandamus is issued to respondent no.4 to pay all arrears of salary and to pay month to month salary to the petitioner within 30 days, thereafter. 24. The original record has been returned to the learned ACSC in the Court itself". 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3, aggrieved against the aforesaid, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed against the petitioner without providing her any notice or opportunity. It is further argued that only on the basis of report submitted by the Block Development Officer, impugned order has been passed, which is perse, illegal and against the principle of natural justice. It is further argued that before passing the aforesaid order, though the same is having civil consequences, petitioner has not given any notice or opportunity. This fact is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. 6. In this view of the matter, order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.3-District Basic Education, Prayagraj is hereby set aside and it is set aside. District Basic Education, Prayagraj is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, unless there is no legal impediment. 7. With the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad