S. HARKAULI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and also perused the material on record. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed to a class-IV post in 1988 and financial approval to his appointment was also granted by the office of the District Inspector of Schools Pratapgarh. By the impugned order dated 14. 11. 2000, approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Joint Director of Education. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Joint Director was not proper authority for this purpose that this matter should have been examined by the District Inspector of Schools. ( 4 ) IN the impugned order the ground for withdrawing the financial approval for the appointment of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was the Manager of the College, therefore, the petitioner could not have been appointed. ( 5 ) THE petitioner claims that at the time of his appointment his father was not the Manager of the college. It has also been contended by the petitioner that one of the grounds on which appointment of the petitioner is cancelled is that the approval is being sought to be given to the appointment of Ram Lakhan Yadav which is also contrary to the record because Ram Lakhan yadav was alleged to have been appointed in 1982 and thereafter he filed Writ Petition saying that he had been appointed without post and posts may be sanctioned. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was reterred to the Director of Education who refused to grant sanction for creation of post. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the order withdrawing the financial approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been passed without any opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner. It also appears from the contention of the petitioner that it is not a case where the petitioner has no plausible defence even worth consideration. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances the impugned order dated 14. 11. 2000 passed by the Joint Director of education is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. It also appears from the contention of the petitioner that it is not a case where the petitioner has no plausible defence even worth consideration. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances the impugned order dated 14. 11. 2000 passed by the Joint Director of education is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. It will however be open to the Joint Director of Education to refer this matter to the District Inspector of Schools who is proper authority for looking into the matter and if such matter is referred to the District Inspector of Schools, the district Inspector of Schools will give proper notice setting forth the grounds on which the approval is sought to be withdrawn and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After hearing, the District Inspector of Schools will pass appropriate reasoned order in the matter. .