( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) IT appears from Annexure 4 to the Supplementary Affidavit that the then District Basic Education Officer while posted at Auraiya had committed serious illegalities and irregularities in appointing such candidates who had secured lesser marks. These findings have been given by the Secretary of the District Basic Shiksha Parishad in pursuance of an order dated 28. 9. 2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8977 of 2003. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondent has urged that nothing wrong has been done. He has referred to Rule 17 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which is as under: - "17. Procedure for direct recruitment to a post for teaching a language.- (1) The Selection Committee shall require the candidates mentioned in the lists referred to in sub-rule (6) of Rule 14 sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, as the case may be, to appear at a written examination which shall be of one hundred marks. (2) In the written examination under sub-rule (1), the candidates will be required to write an essay on a current topic in the language in respect of which the post is to be filled. A candidate who obtains less than fifty marks in the written examination shall be disqualified for appointment. (3) The marks obtained by a candidate, who is not disqualified under sub-rule (2) in the written examination shall be added to his quality points awarded in accordance with the Appendix. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates who have qualified in the written examination under sub-rule (2) in such manner than the candidates who have passed the required training course earlier in point of time shall be placed higher than those who have passed the said training course later and the candidates who have passed the training course in a particular year shall be arranged in accordance with the aggregate of marks obtained by the said candidates in the written examination and quality points. If two or more such candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher in the list. The number of names in the list shall be larger (but not larger by more than twenty-five per cent) than the number of vacancies. If two or more such candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher in the list. The number of names in the list shall be larger (but not larger by more than twenty-five per cent) than the number of vacancies. The Selection Committee shall forward the list to the appointing authority. (5) The list prepared under sub-rule (4) shall remain valid for one year from the date of its preparation. " ( 4 ) IN pursuance of the order of this Court referred to above the Secretary of the District Basic Education Parishad has reported its findings that the then District Basic Education Officer has committed serious illegalities and irregularities in the appointments of teachers who had secured less marks than who have been denied appointment. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has further referred to a Full Bench decision rendered in Devendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of U. P. and others, (1996) 2 U. P. L. B. E. C. 1037. Relying upon paragraphs 5, 11 and 13 of the aforesaid decision the learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the life of the select list is only one year and since the petition has been filed in the year 1999 this Court has no power to order for appointment of the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE question is not of appointment of the petitioners at this stage as the petition is not being finally decided today. The question before the Court is that if a wrong has been committed by an authority and the higher authority in pursuance of an order of the High Court has found that the then District Basic Education Officer had committed serious illegalities and irregularities in giving appointments to such candidates who were not qualified according to Rule 17 quoted above as they had obtained less marks than the petitioners, then certainly this Court has power to correct the wrong and ensure that necessary and appropriate action is taken against such officer and the candidates appointed by him, but before passing any order against the then District Basic Education Officer it would be necessary and appropriate to give him hearing. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners shall impleadd the then District Basic Education Officer during the course of the day as respondent no. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners shall impleadd the then District Basic Education Officer during the course of the day as respondent no. 3 who shall be personally present before the Court and file his own counter affidavit as to why the enquiry report submitted by the Secretary of the District Basic Education Parishad in pursuance of the order of this Court may not be relied upon by the Court for arriving at the conclusion that he is guilty of the illegalities and irregularities in giving appointment while he was posted at Auraiya. . List this case on 16. 7. 2007. .