JUDGMENT This petition has been preferred by the Municipal Council, Morena (hereinafter referred to as the Council). The grievance of the petitioner council is that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass the order. It is pleaded that the order passed by the competent authority under section 94 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is not open to scrutiny before the Board of Revenue. It may be seen that the order was passed by the Joint Director on 11th of November, 1990. The copy of this order has been placed on record as annexure P/4. It is stated that first to third respondents were promoted as Revenue Sub-Inspectors. Some complaints were made against these promotions. These promotions were set aside by the Joint Director by passing the order, annexure P/4. Against that, the aggrieved employees went before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Joint Director. Even if the argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner council be accepted that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass the order, no relief can be granted to the petitioner council. This is because of on quashing Annexure P/1, another order would come into existence which is again liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed without affording opportunity of hearing. It is settled law that discretion is not to be exercised under Article 226 if on quashing an order, another order which is illegal gets resuscitated. See : AIR 1966 SC 828 . So far as the requirement to grant opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed under section 94 (6) is concerned, the matter has been dealt with in detail in writ petition No. 600 of 1994 decided today. It has been held in the above writ petition, the requirement to give opportunity is a condition precedent. For the reasons mentioned therein, I am of the view that the order of the Joint Director can also be not sustained. Thus, the matter is remanded to the Joint Director, who would pass fresh order after affording due opportunity to the aggrieved persons. The aggrieved persons would be at liberty to urge that they were given appointments in accordance with law and that there is no justification to interfere with the same. Thus, the matter is remanded to the Joint Director, who would pass fresh order after affording due opportunity to the aggrieved persons. The aggrieved persons would be at liberty to urge that they were given appointments in accordance with law and that there is no justification to interfere with the same. The petitioner's counsel would make available the order passed in the above writ petition to the competent authority. The petition is disposed of accordingly.