JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Rani Dhari Yadav, who was initially appoint; d as mathematics teacher on 5th July, 1973, in Dr. Bhagwan Das Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Hindi Bhagela, District Jaunpur. His appointment in C.T. Grade was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 17th September, 1973. Thereafter, the post of a teacher in the L.T. Grade was upgraded by letter dated 9th October, 1973, issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. After the creation of the aforesaid post, the petitioner was selected by the management for appointment in the L.T. Grade. This proposal of the management was sent to the District Inspector of School. The District Inspector of Schools approved the petitioner's promotion and selection in L.T. grade and the petitioner was, accordingly, issued an appointment letter for appointment in the L.T. Grade for a period of one year on probation with effect from 1st January, 1974. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 30th September, 1974, cancelled the order of approval passed on 24th May, 1974. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th September, 1974, by means of the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner having been appointed in the L.T. Grade and the same having been approved it cannot be cancelled, without affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 3. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel. 4. At the very outset, it may be stated "here that no counter-affidavit has been filed to the present petition. On 30th January, 1981, this petition come up for hearing before another Bench consisting of Hon. M.P. Mehrotra and Hon K.C. Agarwal, JJ. Then, the Bench granted further time to the Standing Counsel to file the counter-affidavit. Inspite of the fact that more than one year has expired, but no counter-affidavit has been filed by the Standing Counsel. 5. The facts stated in the petition have not been controverted. It has been categorically stated in the petition that the impugned order dated 30th September, 1974, has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, without affording any opportunity to tire petitioner of being heard. The order dated 30th September, 1947, in effect, cancelled the promotion of the petitioner made in L.T. Grade. It has been categorically stated in the petition that the impugned order dated 30th September, 1974, has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, without affording any opportunity to tire petitioner of being heard. The order dated 30th September, 1947, in effect, cancelled the promotion of the petitioner made in L.T. Grade. The petitioner's vital rights are affected by the said order. It was, therefore, necessary that an opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner before the order dated 30th September, 1974, could have been passed by the authority concerned. The order dated 30th September, 1974, is clearly an order void in law, being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 30th September, 1974, is quashed. It is, however, made clear that it would be open to the respondents to pass such other and further order as they may deem fit in accordance with law, but the said order will be passed only after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.