JUDGMENT This writ petition is of 1980 and has been called out in the revised list. Sri Sushil Gupt holding brief on behalf of Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment. However, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter which is of 29 years old and, therefore, I proceed to hear the same. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.07.1980 whereby the selection of teachers was made by the Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Islamnagar, District Badaun (hereinafter referred to as the "College") which was disapproved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, III Region, Bareilly (hereinafter refrerred to as the "RIGS") and the management was directed to issue fresh advertisement and proceed afresh accordingly. 3. The petitioners' claim is that after the selection, the management issued appointment letter dated 23.12.1979, Annexure-3-A, 3-B and 3-C to the writ petition, pursuant whereto they have joined on the post. However, without giving them any opportunity of hearing the RIGS has declined approval and that too without giving any valid reasons. It is further contended that the impugned order dated 05.07.1980 only mentions that the selection proceedings are erroneous and invalid but it does not show as to how and what manner the said proceedings are erroneous and invalid and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and in paras 5 and 7 thereof it is said that no proceeding for selection was initiated and in respect to the proceedings of the meeting of Committee of Management dated 07.08.1979 some complaints were made by the Members of the Committee of Management that appointment of teachers was never in the agenda passed by management and the same has been incorporated subsequently. The Manager of the College was required to reply the said complaint. The same was replied by the Manager but the reply was not found satisfactory and thereafter the impugned order was passed. However, 5. I find that the impugned order is absolutely unreasoned and non-speaking inasmuch as it does not give any reason whatsoever for holding the selection invalid and erroneous. The same was replied by the Manager but the reply was not found satisfactory and thereafter the impugned order was passed. However, 5. I find that the impugned order is absolutely unreasoned and non-speaking inasmuch as it does not give any reason whatsoever for holding the selection invalid and erroneous. In the counter affidavit though it has been said that some complaints were made by some Members of the Committee of Management but after inquiry what finding was recorded thereupon is not contained therein and in a cursory manner only this much has been said that the reply of the Manager is not satisfactory. In a complaint of such a kind, as averred by respondent no. 1 in the counter affidavit, it was incumbent upon him to make a proper inquiry in the matter and after recording an appropriate finding thereon, only thereafter the order of disapproval could have been passed. In the case in hand, the impugned order is illegal, cryptic and vague. Moreover, It is well settled that the validity of an order can be judged from the reasons contained therein and the same cannot be supplied later on by means of an affidavit. The Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , in para 8 of the judgment said: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." 6. Since the impugned order is absolutely vague and cryptic, in my view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.07.1980 is hereby quashed. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pass a fresh order answering the entire questions on merits and after recording a proper finding it will pass an order as to whether the selection and appointment of petitioner can be approved or not. The said order can be passed by respondent no. 1 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Court. The said order can be passed by respondent no. 1 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.