R. H. ZAIDI, J. Petitioners, by means of this petition challenge the validity of the order dated 4-9-1995, contained in Annexure II to the writ petition, passed by the opposite party No. 1. 2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that election of office bearers and members of the committee of management was held on 12-12-1993, In the said election the petitioner was elected as manager of the committee of management. It has further been stated that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard or to defend and the impugned order dated 4-9-1993 was passed by respondent No. 1 at the behest of respondent No. 2. It has further been stated that the term of the Committee of Management cannot be cut short, petitioner was thus, entitled to continue in the office till 12-12-1995, and the impugned order passed by the respon dent No. 1 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. 3. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of contesting respondent controverting the fact stated in the writ petition. It has further been stated that on serious charges of embezzlement etc. the committee of management resolved to remove the petitioner from the office of the manager and he was accordingly removed on 28-8-1995 and in his place respondent No. 2 was elected as the manager of the college, papers relating to the said election were submitted before the District Inspector of Schools, who in accordance with law attested his signatures. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the alleged resolution of the committee of manage ment was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The alleged charge-sheet was never communicated to him nor he was given an opportunity to submit his explanation and the so-called resolution passed by the committee of management is null and void. On the basis of the same the Basic Sbiksba Adhikari had no jurisdiction to attest the signatures of respondent No. 2. It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 4-9-1995 was passed by respondent No. 1 without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and the legal term of the petitioner as the manager of the college could not be cut short. It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 4-9-1995 was passed by respondent No. 1 without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and the legal term of the petitioner as the manager of the college could not be cut short. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission on Bajaj Shiksha Parishad v Dy. Director of Education, 1989 UPLBEC 267. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that before passing the resolution the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing. The charge-sheet framed by the Committee of Management is also alleged to have been served upon the petitioner through registered post but the petitioner did not attend the meeting of the committee of management nor has filed his explanation to the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents had rightly passed the resolution to remove the petitioner from the office of the manager of the school. It has further been contended that an opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1. 6. I have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, it was obligatory upon the committee of management to frame charges against the petitioner, if there was material on the record to frame the same and to communicate the same to the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate that charge-sheet was ever framed and communicated to the petitioner, no receipt of registration and other documentary evidence has been placed on record. 7. In view of the said facts, there was no occasion for the com mittee of management to pass the resolution behind the back of the petitioners and in contravention of the principle of natural justice. It was obligatory upon the respondent No. 1, Basic Shiksha Adhikan also to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Admittedly, the Basic Shiksha Adhikan also did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the petitioner was to complete the period of two years in the office of committee of management. Admittedly, the Basic Shiksha Adhikan also did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the petitioner was to complete the period of two years in the office of committee of management. It is well settled in law that the term of the committee of management cannot be cut short the said principle, in my opinion, is also applicable to the office bearers and members of the committee of management, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to hold the office of the committee of management for two years or the remaining period, if elected subsequently, from the date he was elected as the manager of the committee of management and his terms could not be cut short except in accordance with law. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions the writ petition deserves to be allowed. I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 4-9-1995. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .