Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77254-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 180 of 2025 Appellant :- Ram Roop Shukla And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Sneh Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Arun Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. The appellants claim to have been appointed as class IV employee in the year 2010. Their appointments were also approved on 18.05.2010 by the District Inspector of School, Sonebhadra. Despite this, salary was not paid to the appellants. They came to this Court and a direction was issued for consideration of such claim. It is thereafter that District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 30.06.2016 directing salary to be released to the appellants. They were allegedly working since 2010 and salary was also released to them pursuant to order dated 30.06.2016. It transpires that certain complaint was made against the appointment of the appellants, as a result of which, the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order impugned in the writ petition dated 05.08.2017. This order recorded that the appointments of the appellants were manipulated and that signatures of the principal actually were scanned signatures and were actually not the orders passed by the principal of the institution. 2. The order of the District Inspector of Schools cancelling the previous order dated 30.06.2016 was challenged in the writ petition, wherein, an interim order was initially passed. Ultimately the writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single judge after holding as under: "14. It is true that signatures appear to be made by ink and it is not a case of scanned signature but there is a categorical statement of the then Principal that he has not put his signature on documents, which could be ignored specifically due to manner of selection." 3. Learned Single Judge was persuaded by the observations contained in the order of the District Inspector of Schools, according to which, the appointment of the appellants was based on fabricated and manipulated records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants before passing the order dated 05.08.2017. This fact has been specifically pleaded in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the State what is merely stated is that notices were issued to the principal through the clerk but the principal had not appeared. The counter affidavit of the State is absolutely silent with regard to any notice having been issued to the appellants. 5. In such circumstances, we find that the order of District Inspector of Schools was passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 6. Learned Single Judge, however, has not accepted the appellants claim, in this regard, by observing that appointment obtained on the strength of fraud and misrepresentation does not require any further opportunity. 7. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has rejected this plea of denial of opportunity by observing as under in para no. 17: "17. The other argument of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners is that no opportunity was granted to them and impugned order was passed ex-parte, however, this argument has also no force as the petitioners are granted full liberty to present their case before this Court and since the grounds mentioned in impugned order were based on document which are on record. Once this Court has considered their case in entirety, said argument has no force." 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appointment of the appellants was approved on 18.05.2010 and the order of approval has not been set aside. It is, therefore, submitted that if any order was to be passed against the appellants on account of any illegality or on the ground that the post etc. was not available the appellants were at least entitled to a fair opportunity of contest. 9. Though Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Committee, states that the appointment is fraudulent and consequently no opportunity of hearing is required but we are not impressed by such submission. The order of Inspector did carry civil consequences and therefore an opportunity of hearing was must. 10. In the facts of the case, we find that the appointment of the appellants was approved and they were also paid salary for some period. In the event any order prejudicial to the right of the appellants was to be passed the authorities were expected to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 11. We do not find ourselves to be in agreement with the view expressed by learned Single Judge of this Court on this aspect. In such circumstances, we take a different view. 12. This special appeal, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2025 is set aside. The order passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 05.08.2017 is quashed. 13. In the facts of the case, we direct the matter to be placed before the Regional Level Committee which will afford opportunity of hearing to the appellants and shall pass an appropriate order in the matter relating to legality of the appointment of the appellants as well as their claim for payment of salary. Such order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The question of appellants right to continue and to receive salary alongwith arrears etc. will remain subject to the order to be passed by the Regional Level Committee. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 K.K. Maurya Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad