JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - These two writ petitions which arise out of appointments on one post of Lecturer and one post of teacher in L. T. Grade in Ram Lochan Inter College, Sheopal, District Faizabad, a recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, on the basis of promotion. Writ Petition No. 571 of 1982 has been filed by Ram Kripal Pandey and Satya Narain Pandey while Writ Petition No. 2595 of 1983 has been filed by Lalta Prasad Yadav and Babu Ram Shukla. The said Intermediate College was placed under the management of the Administrator m the year 1979, because of certain lapses on the part of the Committee of Management it was superseded. The Deputy Director of Education, IXth Division, District Faizabad, vide order, dated October 6, 1981 intimated the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad that under the Government Order, dated December 31, 1974 issued under Section 9 of Payment of Salaries Ordinance, one post of Lecturer in Economics, and three posts of teachers in L. T. Grade were approved to be created in. the above institution and that the said vacancies were to be filled in by promotion. The result of the above order was that for the posts of Lecturer, four posts in L. T. Grade were created. Regarding the post of Lecturer the subject of Economics was specified but so far as posts of other teachers are concerned, subjects were not specified. On July 10, 1981 Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Ordinance, 1981 (U. P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1981) was issued. According to the petitioner, the establishment of Commission and the Selection Board was likely to take time, as such the Governor of Uttar Pradesh directed that the above ordinance shall have effect subject to the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (First) Order, 1981 and (Second) Order, 1981 published on July 31,1981 and September 11, 1981 respectively. Thus after coming into force of the above Ordinance the appointments to the posts of Lecturer and teachers were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Removal of Difficulties Orders. Thus after coming into force of the above Ordinance the appointments to the posts of Lecturer and teachers were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Removal of Difficulties Orders. Para 4(2) of the Removal of Difficulties Order provides that every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturer grade may be filed in by promotion the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained grade (L. T. Grade) and in clause 3 of Para 4, it is provided that every vacancy in the posts of a teacher in the trained graduate (L. T. Grade) shall be filled in by promotion by the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained undergraduate (C. T. Grade). The said Removal of Difficulties Order also provides that the appointment in ad hoc basis shall cease to have effect on the joining of a candidate recommended by the Commission or by the Board or on expiry of six months from the date of such ad hoc appointment. The Second Removal of Difficulties Order also provided that the short term vacancies shall be filed in by the Management of the institution by promotion of the permanent Senior-most teacher of the institution in the next lower grade and the District Inspector of Schools shall be informed immediately of such promotion. It was further provided that in the event of nonavailability of teacher in next lower grade the vacancies are to be filled in the manner laid down in clause (3) and in case the District Inspector of Schools fails to communicate his decision within seven days of receipt of papers by him from the Manager, he will be deemed to have given his approval and the management shall appoint the selected candidate and an order of appointment shall be issued under the signature of tire Manager. 2. The Administrator of the institution vide order, dated November 29, 1981 informed the District Inspector of Schools his decision to make promotions in the above posts as under : (1) Ram Kripal Pandey - Petitioner No. 1 : Lecturer in Economics. (2) Chhotey Lal Tripathi - L.T. Grade. (3) Paras Nath Misra - L.T. Grade. (4) Prem Bahadur Singh - L.T. Grade. (5) Satya Narain Pandey : Petitioner No. 2 : L.T. Grade. 3. (2) Chhotey Lal Tripathi - L.T. Grade. (3) Paras Nath Misra - L.T. Grade. (4) Prem Bahadur Singh - L.T. Grade. (5) Satya Narain Pandey : Petitioner No. 2 : L.T. Grade. 3. In the list of seniority which was sent by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools, the petitioner Ram Kripal Pandey was shown to be senior to Lalta Prasad Yadav and Babu Ram Shukla who are petitioners to connected writ petition and Ram Kripal Pandey was shown teaching Economics and Satya Narain Paridey was shown at serial No. 5. The District Inspector of Schools vide his letter, dated January 18,1982 intimated to the Administrator that his proposal is modified and instead of petitioner Ram Kripal Pandey for the post of Lecturer Economics, Lalta Prasad Yadav, opposite party No. 4 was appointed and in place of petitioner No. 2 Satya Narain Pandey, Babu Ram Shukla, opposite party No. 5 was appointed as teacher in L. T. Grade. 4. The plea of the petitioners is that all this was done because of Adhya Prasad Dubey, the Principal of the institution who created bogus dispute by setting a rival committee of management and the petitioners who were neutral have been unnecessarily victimised. The petitioners have further contended that District Inspector of Schools ante dated his older, dated January 18,1982 on the date on which he was absent from his office as he was on leave on that date and the letter was issued after January 15, 1982 when he joined the office. This allegation has been refuted in the counter-affidavit The order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction whatsoever to disapprove any promotion order and the same was against the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order and the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 5. Lalta Prasad Yadav and Babu Ram Shukla have filed another writ petition challenging the order, dated April 28, 1983 issued by Deputy Director of Education contained in Annexure 4 by which their promotion order was set aside on the ground that they were not the senior-most teachers. 6. 5. Lalta Prasad Yadav and Babu Ram Shukla have filed another writ petition challenging the order, dated April 28, 1983 issued by Deputy Director of Education contained in Annexure 4 by which their promotion order was set aside on the ground that they were not the senior-most teachers. 6. The contention raised by Ram Kripal Pandey and Satya Narain Pandey, petitioners to Writ Petition No. 571 of 1982 is not without substance inasmuch as under the Removal of Difficulties Order only an intimation has to be given to the District Inspector of Schools and the Districts Inspector of Schools had no power to approve or disapprove the promotion order. The power under the said order was given in the case of a direct appointment to be made only on non-availability of a teacher in the next lower grade in the institution possessing the prescribed minimum qualifications for promotion. The petitioners having already been appointed, the District Inspector of Schools obviously should have heard them and should not have passed this order without giving them opportunity of hearing even if he was possessed of any such powers. The order so passed offends the principles of natural justice. In the counter-affidavit it has been pleaded that the petitioners did not fulfil requisite qualifications and as such they could not have been promoted. This has been denied by the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit. 7. On behalf of Lalta Prasad Yadav, petitioner to Writ Petition No. 2595 of 1983, it was contended that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by District Inspector of Schools and further that in case he was to set aside that order he could have done so after giving him opportunity of hearing. He claimed that benefit was to go to him as he was a member of backward classes. As the District Inspector of Schools had no authority to approve or disapprove any appointment under the Removal of Difficulties Order, the order passed by him was without jurisdiction and illegal and deserves to be quashed. 8. Consequently Writ Petition No. 571 of 1982 is allowed and the order, dated January 18, 1982 contained in Aunexure-6 to writ petition passed by District Inspector of Schools is quashed. 8. Consequently Writ Petition No. 571 of 1982 is allowed and the order, dated January 18, 1982 contained in Aunexure-6 to writ petition passed by District Inspector of Schools is quashed. Writ Petition No. 2595 of 1983 is dismissed as having become in-fructuous and the interim order is discharged with the direction that the appointment having been made in a short term vacancy, as such the said question of promotion of the same is still open, may be considered afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.