Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Through this writ application the petitioners seek quashing of office order contained in Memo No. 1466 dated 1.6.1991 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Katihar as contained in Annexure-12. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to command the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioners as Headmasters in their respective schools. By the impugned order, on the basis of a decision by the District Education Establishment Committee, Katihar the District Superintendent of Education has cancelled a gradation list of concerned teachers dated 16.9.88 as contained in Annexure-1 and also an order of the then District Superintendent of Education dated 20.10.89 contained in Annexure-3 by which petitioners had been promoted to the post of Headmasters in various Government Elementary Schools in anticipation of approval of the District Education Establishment Committee. 2. Altogether there are 17 petitioners in this writ petition. At the relevant time all of them were teachers in Government Elementary Schools in the district of Katihar and had the qualification of trained graduates. Petitioners 1 to 12 belonged to general category. They were, at the relevant time, already placed in graduate trained scale. Petitioners 13 to 15 belonged to scheduled caste category and petitioners 16 and 17 belonged to scheduled tribe category. At the relevant time petitioner no. 13 was also getting B.A. trained scale but petitioner no. 14 was getting l.A. trained scale and the other petitioners belonging to the reserved category of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe were in Matric trained scale. 3. From Annexure-1 it appears that gradation list of such teachers of the district of Katihar who were in graduate trained scale and belonged to general category and also of such teachers who were in lower scales but belonged to the reserved category of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and were therefore, deemed fit for promotion, was prepared and after approval by the District Education Establishment Committee the same was sent by the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar to the competent authority, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi division, Saharsa for approval. From Annexure-4 it appears that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had approved the gradation list and through his letter dated 4.9.89 (Annexure 4) he authorised the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar to grant promotions to the post of Headmaster on the basis of approved gradation list but on the condition that the appointments by way of promotion shall be subject to decision of the District Education Establishment Committee. Thereafter by office order dated 20.10.89 as contained in annexure-3 the District Superintendent of Education, Katihar issued orders for Appointments of petitioners on the post of Headmasters in anticipation of approval of the District Education Establishment Committee. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners joined their respective posts of headmasters pursuant to order contained in Annexure 3 but soon thereafter by an order dated 9.11.1989 contained in Annexure 6, the Collector, Katihar ordered for cancellation of petitioners promotion and appointment as Headmaster and on that basis the District Superintendent of Education issued a cancellation order dated 17.11.89 (Annexure 7). Since the aforesaid orders of cancellation of Annexure-3 were passed without any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the affected persons henc upon a challenge made to these order through a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C No. 9793/89, this Court by an order dated 5.12.89 contained in Annexure-8 remitte the matter back for final decision by the District Education Establishment Commitee for reconsidering the validity or other wise of order dated 20.10.89 contained in Annexure-3 and further directed that in the meantime the petitioners shall not be reverted to their earlier posts of teachers. Admittedly the petitioners had continued to function as headmaster on account of interim order of this Court. In view of aforesaid directions of this Court not to revert the petitioners till decision by the District Education Establishment Committee, the District Superintendent of Educetion by his order dated 15.12.89 (Annexure-9) cancelled his earlier order dated 17.11.89 (Annexure-7) and petitioners continued as headmasters. B another decision dated 29.12.89 (Ar nexure 10) the District Education Estat lishment Committee refused to approv Annexure-3. The said decision was agai challenged by (he aggrieved persons i this court through a writ petition bearin C.W.J.C.No. 77 of 1990. B another decision dated 29.12.89 (Ar nexure 10) the District Education Estat lishment Committee refused to approv Annexure-3. The said decision was agai challenged by (he aggrieved persons i this court through a writ petition bearin C.W.J.C.No. 77 of 1990. By order date 26.2.1991 (Annexure-11) a Divisio Bench of this Court quashed Annexure-10 on the ground that the said decision was taken without deciding as to whether the promotipn of the petitioners was in accordance with law or not, as were required to be decided by the Distric Education Establishment Committee in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 5.12.89. 5. It appears that the District Education Establishment Committee recon sidered the matter and took a decision as evidenced by impugned order containe in Annexure-12, to the effect that the gradation list contained in Annexure-1 was not in accordance with law inasmuch as it ought not to have contained names of such teachers who were not already placed in graduate trained scale. On this basis that is, by holding the gradation list to be invalid, the District Education Establishment Committee, consequently held the order of promotion as contained in Annexure-3 to be against law. 6. This writ application against the impugned order contained in Annexure- 12, was filed soon thereafter and by order dated 27.6.1991 this court stayed the operation of Annexure-12. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order mainly on three grounds. Firstly, it was contended that after the gradation list contained in Annexure 1 had been approved by the then District Education Establishment Committee and also by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the successor District Education Establishment Committee had no power to disapprove or cancel the gradation list contained in Annexure-1. In this regard it was further submitted that by order dated 5.12.89 (Annexure-8) this Court had remitted the matter back to the Committee only to find out legality or otherwise of the order of promotion dated 20.10.89 (Annexure-3) and not to examine the legality or otherwise of the gradation list dated 16.6.1988 which had never been disputed by the respondents before this Court. Secondly, it was contended that even if the Committee is presumed to have the power to set aside an already approved gradation list, the same cannot be done without notice of such an intended action to the persons like the petitioners who are seriously affected by such an order. Lastly, on merits it was submitted that only a distinct part of Annexure-1, the gradation list, appearing at the end of the document contained a sub-heading of reserved category of teachers belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe who were not getting graduate trained scale and hence at best only that severable part of Annexure-1 could have been interfered with by a competent authority after giving notice to the affected persons and the impugned action whereby the whole of the gradation list has been cancelled when no infirmities have been pointed out with regard to the list of general category teachers or even with regard to petitioner no. 13 a scheduled caste teacher is bad in law as well as on facts. 8. To put across his first point, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a notification of the Government of Bihar dated 18th December, 1984 issued under section 8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) 1976. Clause-12 of the said notification provides for preparing a waiting list/seniority list for the purpose of appointment/promotion and such list prepared by the District Education Establishment Committee requires approval by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Such approved waiting list/seniority list has to be published by the District Superintendent of Education within a fortnight of its approval. Clause-13 of the notification provides for an appeal against such iist relating to appointment/promotion before the Divisional Commissioner. On the basis of aforesaid provision it was submitted that once the seniority list contained in Annexure 1 was approved, the proper authority to interfere with the same was the Divisional Commissioner and in no case such interference could have been done by the District Education Establishment Committee when a higher official such as Regional Deputy Director of Education had approved the list. Without accepting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of notification dated 18th December, 1984, on general principles of Administration as well as fairness I am in agreement with the proposition that the District Education Establishment Committee could not have interfered with Annexure-1 once it had been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. No doubt even the notification dated 18th December, 1984 helps the case of the petitioners on this point but in clause 13 which provides for appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, the words used are to the effect that if an applicant or a teacher is aggrieved with regard to his appointment/promotion then within a fort-night of publication of appointment/promotion list he may prefer an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. This provision creates a forum of appeal for aggrieved individuals and that also against a list of appointment/promotion. Such a list cannot be treated to be same as a waiting list/seniority list as mentioned in clause-12. Nonetheless, if the District Education Establishment Committee, on the administrative side, found any illegality or irregularity in the approved gradation list, it ought to have pointed out this illegality and referred the matter to Regional Deputy Director of Education for reconsidering his approval. 9. So far as the second point is concerned, in my view, the same has sufficient force and there is no option but to hold that the action of setting aside the gradation list contained in Annexure-1 seriously affects the persons like the petitioners whose names are included in the said gradation list and therefore, even a competent authority such as the Regional Deputy Director of Education could not have set aside the approved list without notice to the affected persons. Hence, the impugned order contained in Annexure-12 is found to be illegal on account of violation of principles of natural justice. 10. So far as the last contention of the petitioners is concerned, it has been rightly submitted that even if the reasonings given in Annexure 12 are accepted to be correct then also only a severable part of the gradation list contained in Annexure-1 can be doubted to be incorrect. 10. So far as the last contention of the petitioners is concerned, it has been rightly submitted that even if the reasonings given in Annexure 12 are accepted to be correct then also only a severable part of the gradation list contained in Annexure-1 can be doubted to be incorrect. On the basis of circulars of the State Government dated 24.2.71 and 31.7.72 it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was already a policy decision of the Government that in case of vacancies for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes category relaxation may be granted for filling up such vacancies by persons belonging to the reserved categories who may not be found unfit for the proposed appointment/promotion. There appears some force in this submission also but in my view, it is not necessary for this Court to decide this issue finally in this writ petition as I have already held that Annexure 12 is bad in law for want of power in the District Education Establishment Committee and also for want of compliance with principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order contained in Annexure-12 is quashed. However, in view of aforesaid discussions it is observed that in case the competent authority still decides to look into illegality of the gradation list contained in Annexure-1 then the same should be confined to only that part of the gradation list which contains names of the reserved category teachers who at the relevant time were not placed in the graduate trained scale. It is also clarified that any such exercise must be done keeping in view the principles of natural justice and any adverse decision can be taken only after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the persons likely to be affected. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.