JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - In both these writ petitions, parties are common and the facts involved are identical and hence both petitions are being heard disposed of by a common order. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged in both writ petitions and the parties counsel are agreed that the writ petitions may be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 3. In Writ Petition No. 11661 of 1989, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21st June, 1989 by which respondent No. 1, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools,] 'Varanasi, Vth Region recalled her order dated 2nd September, 1989 by which the posts of C. T. grade and one post of B. T. C. grade were revived with effect from July, 1987, as these posts stood elapsed for non appointment of teachers. The facts leading to these petitions are that Smt. Madhulika and Smt. Rajeshwari, teachers in B.T.C. grade, were promoted to C.T. Grade by the Committee of Management and the vacancy in three posts of B.T.C. grade were filed by appointing these petitioners. The appointment was duly approved by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 2nd September, 1988 and they started functioning on the s.aid post and were paid salary. The respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 21st June, 1989 recalled its order dated 2nd September, 1988 on the ground that photostat copy of the letter dated 24th August, 1972 which was tiled along with the application for revival, did not appear to be genuine as it was not attested and signed by any Gazetted Officer. It is not disputed that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of explanation or hearing has been given to the petitioners or to the Committee of Management. The document was admittedly filed by the Committee of Management and the petitioners could not be held responsible for the same in any manner. As the petitioners were regularly appointed and the appointments were duly approved by the respondent No., a valuable right was created in their favour which could not be taken away without giving them opportunity of hearing. Further the respondent No. 1 could ascertain the genuineness of the letter dated 24th August, 1972, a copy of which could be obtained from the concerned authorities. Further the respondent No. 1 could ascertain the genuineness of the letter dated 24th August, 1972, a copy of which could be obtained from the concerned authorities. As the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, it cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. Writ Petition No. 14725 of 1990 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing order dated 11th June, 1990 by which respondent No. 1 directed not to pay salary to the petitioners as the opinion of the Law Secretary, was being sought from the Lucknow on question of payment of salary to petitioners in view of the interim order passed in writ petition No. 11661 of 1989, by which the petitioners were permitted to work on their posts and were directed to be paid their salary. The interim order dated 26-6-1989 passed by this Court which was continued further by order dated 2-11-1989 is being quoted below : "Till 10-10-1989 the petitioner shall be permitted to work and will be paid his salary. Sd. I R.A. Sharma, J. 29-6-1989." A perusal of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 11661 of 1989 will show the direction of this Court was very clear and there was no question of any ambiguity which could require any opinion from learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel or the Law Secretary. The order passed by respondent No. 1 is arbitrary on the face of it. However, there is no need of saying anything further in this regard as the order dated 21st June, 1989 is being quashed in the earlier writ petition, this order dated 11-6-1990 cannot also be sustained in law which can only be said to be a consequential order and difficulty in payment of salary was on account of order dated 21st June, 1989. 5. For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 21st June, 1989 (Annexure No. 4 to writ petition No. 11661 of 1989) and the order dated 11th June, 1990 (Annexure No. 9 to Writ Petition No. 14725 of 1990) are hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to be continuing in service. 5. For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 21st June, 1989 (Annexure No. 4 to writ petition No. 11661 of 1989) and the order dated 11th June, 1990 (Annexure No. 9 to Writ Petition No. 14725 of 1990) are hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to be continuing in service. They shall be paid salary including arrears for which they are entitled in law within a period of three months from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. 11 is further made clear that it shall be open to the respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the Committee of Management and after ascertaining the genuineness of the letter/order dated 24-8-1972. 6. There will be no order as to costs. 7. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.