JUDGMENT 1. When this vacating stay petition C.M.P. No. 2085 of 1990 came up for consideration, learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the main Writ Appeal itself could be taken up for disposal, with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the Writ Appeal for disposal. 2. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. l5235 of 1989 dated 5-12-1989. The learned Single Judge, after making reference to the grievance projected in the Writ Petition observed as follows: Again the Inspectress of Girls Schools sent a communication on 30-6-1989 to the 5th Respondents School reiterating the direction that the headmaster in accordance with the rules, should be appointed immediately and the vacancy should be filed up. According to the petitioner, till now the direction has not been carried out. I heard the Government Pleader and I am of the view that the following direction will meet the ends of justice. Respondents 1 to 4 are hereby directed to take such steps as are available to them in law to enforce the order dated 6-3-1989 passed by the first Respondent in K.Dis.No.l94802/WS/88. If the 5th Respondent does not carry out the direction, respondents 1 to 4 may also take such proceedings as are available under law against the 5th Respondent. Respondents 1 to 4 shall take steps within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. 3. Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Appellant submits that the writ petition was allowed at the admission stage itself without any notice to the appellant who had been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition and that an order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the Appellant to project its case before the learned Single Judge. According to Mr. Gandhi the direction of the learned single Judge as extracted above may appear to be rather innocuous, but if considered in the light of the case of respondent No. 5 that the order dated 23-3-1989 had been passed by the second respondent without any authority of law, the fact would be that the appellant herein would be compelled to comply with the directions given by an authority which had no jurisdiction to issue such directions. Whether the submission of Mr. Whether the submission of Mr. Gandhi is valid or not we would not like to comment upon at this stage. It however, is not disputed that the directions have been given by the learned single Judge without notice to respondent No. 5 and as a matter of fact the learned Single Judge opined that in case Respondents 1 to 4 find that respondent No. 5 was not carrying out the directions contained in the order dated 6-3-1989, they could take proceedings against respondent No. 5 as may be available under law. The opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 5 in the facts and circumstances of the case was, therefore imperative. 4. It is not disputed by Mr. Martin, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 5 in this Writ Appeal that the Writ Petition was disposed of without notice to the appellant and without giving him any opportunity to project his case. Under these circumstances, we cannot but interfere in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition cited above which we hereby do. As a result, the Writ Petition would be treated as admitted and would have to be heard afresh after notice to the parties. 5. It is submitted before us that Writ Petition No. 562 of 1990 has since been filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 6-2-1989. We therefore think it proper to direct that both the writ petitions be heard together.