JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan and B.D. Agarwal, JJ. - These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can conveniently be disposed of together by a common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979 has been filed by Smt. Uma Sunflari Verma who has asserted herself to be the duly appointed Principal after due selection in respect of Balika Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaunpur. Writ Petition No. 2630 of 1974 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Balika Uchchittar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaunpur. 3. Smt. Uma Sundari Verma, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979, was interviewed by a Selection Committee on 10th September, 1971 and she being found suitable was duly selected for the post of Principal of the Institution. It has been alleged on her behalf that she was appointed on the post of Principal, and her appointment was duly approved by the Deputy Director of Education (Women) An appointment letter dated 15-10-1971 was issued appointing her on probation for a period of one year. It is asserted that she stood confirmed on 13-10-1972 on this post. Since there was some litigation being on in connection with the management of the Institution and one Sri Mukhteshwar Prasad was alleged to have been declared as the Manager by virtue of a compromise H;r services were terminated on 6th of June, 1973 The termination order was challenged as being violative of the provisions of Section 9 (3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as having been passed without prior approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. This order of termination dated 6th June, 1973 was se aside by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by her order dated 2-11-1973 Thereafter it was found that the salary bills of the petitioner Smt. Uma Sundari Verma were withheld and hence representations were made by her to the authorities under the Act. Ultimately the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, on the basis that the management had defaulted in making payment of salary to Smt. Uma Sundari Verma passed an order dated 29th April. 1974 directing single operation of the account. It is this order which has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 2630 of 1974 by the Committee of Management. 4. Later, it appears that the Management represented the matter to the Education Authorities. 1974 directing single operation of the account. It is this order which has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 2630 of 1974 by the Committee of Management. 4. Later, it appears that the Management represented the matter to the Education Authorities. The Deputy Director of Education (Woman) by u Communication dated 1-2-1977 intimated the Manager of the College that the selection of Smt. Uma Sundari Verma by Selection Committee was not in accordance, with law and the approval given by the Deputy Director of Education (Women) to that appointment was illegal and of no consequence it was, however, expressed in that communication that there was no power set aside the approval earlier granted. Later, it appears that the Management continued to press its grievances before the Director of Education. Ultimately an order dated 14th April, 1978 was passed by the Joint Director on behalf of the Director of Education declaring the selection of Smt. Uma Sundari Verma as void and of no consequence and the consequent approval granted to the appointment made on the basis of the selection as being illegal. It is in consequence to this order that the Accounts Officer did not pass salary bills of Smt. Uma Sundari Verma, A communication to that effect was issued by the Accounts Officer on 7-12-1978. In Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979, the petitioner has challenged the aforementioned order dated 14th April, 1978 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Women) as also the communication dated 7-12-1978 of the Accounts Officer. 5. Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the order dated 14-4-1978 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Women) was an order adverse to the petitioner's interest declaring her selection and appointment as the Principal of the College void and of no consequence at d. also, holding earlier approval granted to her appointment as being illegal and of no consequence. It is stated that this order could not legally have been passed in the absence of an opportunity being afforded to her to have her say in the matter. Sri G. C. Dwivedi has stated that on this account the order dated 14th April, 1978 stands vitiated. We find force in this contention. 6. It is stated that this order could not legally have been passed in the absence of an opportunity being afforded to her to have her say in the matter. Sri G. C. Dwivedi has stated that on this account the order dated 14th April, 1978 stands vitiated. We find force in this contention. 6. It has been categorically asserted by Smt. Uma Sunderi Verms in her petition that no opportunity of any kind was afforded to her before the order of 14th April, 1978 was passed A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management, respondent No 1 to this petition. Though this averment in the petition has been sought to be controverted but we are unable to place any reliance on this. In the rejoinder-affidavit the facts stated in that connection have been reiterated. It was actually for the Director of Education who has been arrayed as respondent no 2 to have controverted this but no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director of Education to challenge these averments made in the petition. In these state of facts we have to hold that in-fact n0 opportunity was given to the petitioner to have her say before the order dated 14th April, 1978 was passed by the Joint Director of Education (Women). It is settled law that an order adverse to a party cannot be passed in its absence. No opportunity of any kind was given to the petitioner to have her say in the matter. We are, hence, unable to sustain this order dated 14th April, 1978 which is liable to be quashed on this ground. So far as the order dated 7-12-1978 of the Accounts Officer is concerned, that being consequential to the order of the Joint Director dated 14th April, 1978 must be quashed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management has stated before us that the Committee of Management has already represented to the Stale Government under sub-section (10) of Sec. 16-E of the Act whereunder the State Government is empowered to cancel any appointment made of' the Head of Institution, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, after affording an opportunity of hearing to such person. The State Government has also power to pass such orders as may be necessary. 8. The State Government has also power to pass such orders as may be necessary. 8. Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979 has admitted this fact that the Management has in fact represented to the State Government It has been stated before us by Sri C.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management, that the State Government has expressed its inability to decide the representation in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979. Since the petition is now being decided, the interim order passed in this petition ceases to be of any effect. It will be open to the State Government to now decide the representation made by the Committee of Management, without any unnecessary delay. Since the matter will now be considered by the State Government we retrain from making any observations on the merits of the matter. 9. So far as the other Writ Petition no. 2630 of 1974 is concerned, this writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management impunging the order of the District Inspector of Schools directing single operation of the account. This order was passed on the basis of the alleged default of the' Management on account of non-payment of salary to Smt. Uma Sundri Verma Later, it has been noticed that by the order dated 14-4-1978 of the Joint Director of Education It was held that the selection and appointment and approval of Smt. Uma Sundari Verma as the Principal of the College was illegal and of no consequence. 10. The basis of the order dated 20th April, 1974 directing single operation of the account was that the management had committed default in payment of salary of Uma Sundri Verma. The Joint Director of Education by her order dated 14th April, 1978 having held that the appointment of Smt. Verma was illegal, obviously the management could not be said to have defaulted in not making payment of salary to her. This order dated 14th April, 1978 now having been quashed by us by this judgment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition, which challenges the order dated 29th April, 1974. this petition is hence, liable to be dismissed. 11. This order dated 14th April, 1978 now having been quashed by us by this judgment, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition, which challenges the order dated 29th April, 1974. this petition is hence, liable to be dismissed. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979 and quash the order dated 14th April, 1978 of the Joint Director of Education (Women) an also the order (communication) dated 7-12-1978 of the Accounts Officer Writ Petition No. 2630 of 1974 is dismissed. 12. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs in both these writ petitions. 13. Writ Petition No. 647 of 1979 allowed and Writ Petition No. 2630 of 1974 dismissed.