JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - The Committee of Management of Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the college) invited applications on 22-7-1979 for the post of Assistant Teacher (Sitar) in u T. Grade. Petitioner and others applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement. The petitioner was ultimately selected by a selection committee and the committee of management accordingly resolved to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Sitar). The manager of the college thereafter issued an order of appointment dated 15-10-1979 to the petitioner, appointing her on probation for one year. In pursuance of the appointment letter, she joined the college as Assistant Teacher (Sitar). Petitioner's appointment was approved by the Regional Inspectress for Girls Schools, 4th Region, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the R. I. G. S.) by her letter dated 17-11-1979. It appears that the Director of Education by his letter dated 27-6-1980 informed the R. I. G. S. that the post against which the petitioner has been appointed should have been filled in by promotion and not by direct recruitment and accordingly suggested that action for termination of service of the petitioner be taken under Regulation 25 of Chapter 3 of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The R. I. G. S. vide her letter dated 31-7-1980 asked the manager to take action as required by the letter of the Director of Education, mentioned above. Manager of the college vide his letter dated 9-8-1980 has accordingly terminated the service of the petitioner under Regulation 25 after giving one month notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders of the Director of Education, R. I. G. S. and the manager of the college. At the time when the writ petition was filed, this Court stayed the operation of the order of termination of the service of the petitioner, which was confirmed on 14-9-1981. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on four grounds, namely (1) petitioner, being probationer, could not have been removed from service without prior approval of the R. I. G. 8. (ii) no teacher of the college including the respondent No. 4 was eligible for being promoted and the post has to be filled by direct recruitment only. (ii) no teacher of the college including the respondent No. 4 was eligible for being promoted and the post has to be filled by direct recruitment only. Question of promotion as such did not arise, (iii) petitioner was entitled to the notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before termination of her service, and (iv) even if the post was liable to be filled by promotion, petitioner's appointment could not have been cancelled as she is not guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, disputed the claim of the petitioner and has requested for the dismissal of the petitioner. 4. It is not possible to accept the first submission made by the learned, counsel for the petitioner. The R. I.G.S. has herself by her order dated 31-7-1980 required the management of the college to terminate the services of the petitioner in pursuance whereof the manager of the college has passed the impugned order of termination of her service. As such, it cannot be said that there was no prior approval, in writing of the R. I.G.S. before terminating the service of the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner on the date when the vacancy occurred or on the date when the post was advertised on 22-7-1979 inviting application, respondent No. 4 or any other teacher of the College had not completed five years' service in C. T. Grade and as such, were not eligible for promotion and the management had no alternative but to make appointment by direct recruitment. The vacancy against which the petitioner has been appointed occurred on 1-3-1978 when the previous teacher resigned. This vacancy was advertised by the management on 22-7-1979 in pursuance of which the petitioner and others applied and as mentioned before, petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that although the vacancy occurred on 1-3-1978 ; but no appointment having been made within three months, the vacancy lapsed under Regulation 20 of Chapter 2. It is further stated that at the instance of the' management, this vacancy was received and permission for making appointment was given to the management on 21-4-1979 in pursuance of which the management advertised the post on 22-7-1979. It is further stated that at the instance of the' management, this vacancy was received and permission for making appointment was given to the management on 21-4-1979 in pursuance of which the management advertised the post on 22-7-1979. It is true that Regulation 6 of Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act prescribed for promotion to L.T. Grade atleast five years continuous substantive service in C.T. Grade and unless one possesses this minimum qualification, he is not eligible for promotion to L.T. Grade. The respondent No. 4 was appointed in C.T, Grade on 8-7-1974 and this appointment was approved by the R.I.G.S. on 40-7-1979. According to the petitioner the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 in C.T. Grade shall be 30-7-1974 when her appointment was approved by the R. I. G. S. and according to the respondent, the date of her appointment. will be 8-7-1974 when the management passed an order for appointment. There is serious dispute between the parties about the date of occurrence of the vacancy and eligibility of respondent No. 4 for promotion. Neither the Director-of Education nor the R. I. G. S. had considered these questions and without deciding them, it was not legally permissible for them to require the management to terminate the services of the petitioner. These are all questions of facts, which could have been more appropriately decided at their level on the basis of the relevant material in accordance with the principles of natural justice. When there is dispute on certain questions of fact on which depend the rights of the parties, the decision should not be taken by the authorities without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to those, who may be adversely affected by such a decision. 6. In para 22 of the writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioner that her services have been terminated without giving her reasonable opportunity of being heard. Para 18 of the counter affidavit of Sri Shahab Uddin, filed on behalf of the R. I. G. S. contains the reply of para 22 of the writ petition ; but there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. Para 18 of the counter affidavit of Sri Shahab Uddin, filed on behalf of the R. I. G. S. contains the reply of para 22 of the writ petition ; but there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. In para 27 of the counter affidavit of Smt. Padma Singh, respondent No. 4, it has been asserted that the petitioner was not entitled to any notice or opportunity of being heard. It is thus, clear that the petitioner was not given any notice or reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders. Without deciding the questions about the date of occurrence of vacancy and the eligibility of respondent No. 4 for promotion in accordance with the principles of natural justice, it was not open respondents to direct the termination of service of the petitioner. The impugned order as such, are arbitrary and cannot be sustained, 7. It is not necessary to decide the last plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the writ petition is being allowed on the second and third questions raised by him. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The impugned orders dated 27-6-1980, 31-7-1980- and 9-8-1980, passed by the Director of Education, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 4th Region, Allahabad and the manager of the College respectively are quashed.