Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. These writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of at this stage. 2. The petitioners In this application haw prayed for quashing of order dated 29-6-1992 (Annexure-1 of C. W. J. C. No.6291 of 1992) issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, whereby the orders promotion granted to the petitioners have been cancelled. 3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. Petitioners are Assistant Teachers. Pursuant to the recommendstions of 4th Pay revision Committee, they were granted time bound promotions allegedly 941 post of Intermediate trained scale teachers and 674 posts of B. A. trained scale teachers were sanctioned. The District Superintendent of education allegedly on the basis of the representations filed by different petitioners granted scales of pay admissible to the Intermediate trained teachers and Graduate trained teachers respectively by various orders. From a perusal of the said order, it appears that one Prem Shankar srivastava, the then District Superintendent of Education passed the said orders without even placing the matter before the District Education establishment Committee Thereafter by reason of an order dated 2nd october, 1991 the said orders of promotion were directed to be stayed. The aforementioned order dated 2nd October, 1991 (Annexure-7) was issusd as it was found that several teachers were not being granted their scale of pay were promoted on irregular basis. A writ petition was filed in this Court being C. W. J. C. No, 8186 of 1991 questioning the aforementioned order dated 2nd October, 1991. It appears that by the impugned order dated 29-6-1992, the District Education Establishment Committee directed cancellation of orders of promotion granted higher scales of pay to the petitioners by the said Sri Prem Shankar Srivastava, the then district Superintendent of Education and directed recovery of the excess amount received by them. 4. The only ground taken in support of this application is that prior to passing of the aforementioned order dated 29-6-1992, principles of natural Justice have not been complied with. 4. The only ground taken in support of this application is that prior to passing of the aforementioned order dated 29-6-1992, principles of natural Justice have not been complied with. In some cases it has been contended that although the petitioners were granted scale of pay admissible to matric trained teachers, they were entitled to pay admissible to I. A. trained teachers and B. A. trained teachers, as they had requisite qualification on the dates of their respective appointments The learned counsel in this connection relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in sharwan Kumar Jha V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 309 . 5. As the very out-set, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not dispute the fact that for the purpose of passing orders of promotion to a higher scale of pay, the only competent authority Is the District Education Establishment Committee. It is also not disputed at the Bar that the District Superintendent of education has merely been authorised to communicate the order passed by the District Education Establishment Committee. 6. In this view of the matter, it is indisputable that the orders of promotion has been passed by the then District Superintendent of Education (Shri Prem Shankar Srivastava) without any authority in law. 7. From a perusal of the Impugned order dated 29-6-1992, it appears that a communication was made to all Sub-Divisional Education officers, Regional Education Officers, Block Education Extension Officers, and Sub-Inspectors of School with regard to the decisions of the District education Establishment Committee relating to the orders of promotion passed by Sri Prem Shankar Srivastava, the then District Superintendent of Education (under suspension) during his period of work, namely, january, 1991 to September, 1991 From a perusal of the said order inter alia, it appears that not only BO recommendation of the District education Establishment Committee has been obtained prior to passing of the said orders but also the cases of other teachers who were senior to the petitioners had cot been considered at all. It further appears that in. . . some cases orders of promotion were passed with retrospective effect from which even the concurrence of the Finance Department was not obtained. 8. It further appears that in. . . some cases orders of promotion were passed with retrospective effect from which even the concurrence of the Finance Department was not obtained. 8. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether in this situation in whether it was necessary for the state to give an opportunity of hearing to all such teachers individually before passing the impugned orders, 9. There cannot be any doubt that when a person is appointed in a post under the State he derives a right to hold the same, when such an appointment is sought to be set aside or cancelled, the affected employee is visited with civil consequences, and, thus, in such cases, it is necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice, Bat where appointment has been mads for monetary or other extraneous consideration by an offer who was not not entitled to pass such orders, such appointments/promotions would be wholly illegal and thus nullities. Any such order of appointment or promotion if made in violation of mandatory provisions of the Recruitment Rules and/or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India would also be nullities. In a case where the order of promotion is forged and fabricated one, the promotee does not derive any right to obtain any benefit pursuant thereto, 10. In view of the order proposed to be passed by us It is not necessary to consider the question as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be heard even in a case of this nature. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, it Is admitted that the matter was never placed before the District Education Establishment Committee and thus admittedly the orders of promotion granted in favour of the petitioners were illegal 11. In our opinion, therefore, there cannot be any doubt that if the orders or promotion are illegal being violative of Article 16 of the constitution of India and/or the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India the principles of natural justice need not be complied with inasmuch as in such an event the concerned employee had not derived any right to hold or continue in the said post. However, before doing so the fundamental facts have to be found at by the Competent authority Reference in this connection may be made to Satyendra Prasad v State of Bihar, 1991 (2) PLJR 460 ; Kamal Kumar Sinha V/s. Indira Gandhi institute of Medical Sciences and others, 1990 (2) PLJR 465 ; M. L. Gupta V/s. Instrumentality, 1992 (1)PLJR 137 ; Union of India and others V/s. Teram parashramji Bombhate, AIR 1992 SC 570 . 12. The issuance of writ of a certiorarl is a discretionary remedy. The court may not issue a writ only because it is lawful to do so. The high Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in quashing the illegal order, if it is found that thereby another illegal order shall revive. In such an event, the Court may also quash both the orders. 13. In Pramod Kumar and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1988 PLJR 923, it has been held as follows : "it Is now well-settled by the various decision of this court and the Supreme Court of India that issuance of a writ afcerttorart js a discretionary remedy. In this connection reference may may be made in the case of Godde Venkateshwara Rao V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828 ; abdul Majid and others V/s. The State Transport Appellate authority, Bihar ami others, AIR 1960 Patna 333 ; Devendra prasad Gupta V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1977 BBCJ 543 ; 1977 PLJR 576 ; Hart Prasad Mandal V/s. Additional Collector, 1988 BBCJ 575 : 1988 PLJR 636 ; Banwari Lal Newatia a. Under secretary to Government of India and others, 1982 BLT 311 and 1978 (1) SCC 40 The aformentioned decisions are authorities for the proposition that writ jurisdiction of the High Court only provides for discretionary remedy and it should not be exercised for quashing an order which might give rise to another illegal order as if substantial justice has been done to the parties. In this situation, reference may be made to recent decision of mine in the case of Jai Bharat Co. In this situation, reference may be made to recent decision of mine in the case of Jai Bharat Co. V/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. , 1988 blt 192, wherein it was held that a High Court would be justified in a given case to refuse to interference with illegal order if it is inequitable so to do or if the same would be against public interest" Reference in this connection may be made to Sukhu Mahto and another V/s. The State of Bihar, 1992 (2) PLJR 134. 14 In S. L. Kapaor V/s. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC 136 , It has been held that although non-observance of the principles of natural justice is itself prejudicial but in that case also it has been observed : "linked with this question is the question whether the failure to observe natural justice does at all matter of the observance of natural justice would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. Whereon the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible, and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approved the non-observance of natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. " 15. In this situation, we are of the view that it is not necessary for us to quash the impugned orders. 16. However, it appears that there are several vacant posts for grant of Intermediate trained scale and graduate trained scale. In this view of the matter, we direct the District Education establishment Committee to consider the cases of all eligible teachers in accordance with law and in compliance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. If there arises any dispute with regard to seniority of the teachers, individual teachers may file their representations before the district Education Establishment Committee, which may be verified by it in presence of any representative of the teachers preferably the President and/or General Secretary of the Teachers Association. For the purpose of consideration of individual representation of the petitioners, it would not be necessary for the Education Establishment Committee to hear the teachers individually as their cases can be represented by their authorised representative, namely, President and/or General Secretary of the Teachers association. For the purpose of consideration of individual representation of the petitioners, it would not be necessary for the Education Establishment Committee to hear the teachers individually as their cases can be represented by their authorised representative, namely, President and/or General Secretary of the Teachers association. However, in any case, any particular teacher has any grievance with regard to grant of a particular scale of pay to him from the very beginning, he may file proper representation before the competent authority which may be considered on its own merits. 17. However, in cases where it it found that in absence of proper gradation list it is not possible for the District education Establishment Committee and/or the representatives of the teachers to come to a just decision in that event a final gradation list should be prepared within a period of two months thereafter and in the meanwhile atleast one months time should be given to the effected teachers to fill their objections to the draft gradation list. Once the final gradation list is published, the district Education Establishment Committee shall pass appropriate orders of promotion in accordance with law keeping in view, the sanctioned strengh of each cadre, the existing vacancy etc. It goes without saying that if it be found an enquiry that the orders of promotion in favour of the petitioner had validly been passed, the impugned orders must be recalled and all lawful dues should be paid to them at nearly date. These applications are disposed of with the aforementioned directions.