JUDGMENT By the Court.—The State, through its officers of the Basic Education Department is in appeal, defending its action of declaring the alleged appointment of about 283 Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, who were possessed of B.Ed. (Correspondence course) qualifications as illegal, and to prevent them from claiming any continuance as Assistant Teachers or consequential benefits including payment of salary. 2. All three appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20031 of 1999 dated 22.4.2009 followed by another learned Single Judge in two petitions being Writ Petition No. 20061 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 20354 of 1999 giving rise to these appeals. 3. The common ground of challenge in all the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge was that the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah whereby general directions had been issued not to give effect to the alleged appointment orders of the respondents-writ petitioners in all the three appeals is unlawful. It was urged by the respondents-writ petitioners that the said order had been passed without any notice or opportunity even though the petitioners had already joined and started working as assistant teachers in their respective institutions. The writ petitions were allowed and the order dated 17.4.1999 was quashed with a mandamus to the appellants to permit the petitioners to work and function as assistant teachers in their respective institutions and to pay them salary. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is stated that interim orders were passed in all three petitions, which read as under : “Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 pray for and are granted four weeks’ time for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within one week thereafter. List the petition for admission in the week commencing 30th August, 1999. Petitioners are directed to serve the respondent No. 2 personally as also by registered post A/D for which step is to be taken within a week. Respondent No. 2 may also file counter-affidavit, if any, within the aforesaid period of four weeks. List the petition for admission in the week commencing 30th August, 1999. Petitioners are directed to serve the respondent No. 2 personally as also by registered post A/D for which step is to be taken within a week. Respondent No. 2 may also file counter-affidavit, if any, within the aforesaid period of four weeks. In view of the contentions made by the respective parties and as no finding has reached in respect of the appointment of the petitioners until further orders the respondents will allow the petitioners to continue in service and pay them salary in accordance with law. But, this order will not prevent the respondents from making any appropriate inquiry in respect of the appointments of the petitioners and to take appropriate action in terms of the decision of such inquiry.” 5. The appellants appear to have not complied with the said directions, which resulted in filing of contempt petitions before this Court and the same are stated to be pending. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed vide judgment dated 22.4.2009 and 30.7.2009 respectively. 6. We have heard Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Anoop Misra who has appeared for all the contesting respondents in these appeals. 7. Sri Kushwaha contends that during the pendency of the contempt matters, after the decision in the writ petitions, an inquiry was conducted as per the directions given in the orders passed and the inquiry reveals that the respondents-writ petitioners were neither qualified nor were they appointed by following any prescribed procedure of selection. They were not working and their claim was staked on the basis of fake and forged appointment orders. Consequently, taking notice of the said inquiry in which all the respondents-petitioners were put to notice and had participated, the District Basic Education Officer has passed an order on 30.6.2010 holding that the respondents-writ petitioners were not entitled to claim any continuance as assistant teachers and that the action taken under the order dated 17.4.1999 was perfectly justified. 8. He submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error by proceeding to allow the petition in spite of the fact that the appellants had taken a clear stand in their counter-affidavit that the respondents, for the reasons aforesaid, were not entitled to any relief. 8. He submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error by proceeding to allow the petition in spite of the fact that the appellants had taken a clear stand in their counter-affidavit that the respondents, for the reasons aforesaid, were not entitled to any relief. He contends that the learned Judge has completely overlooked the aforesaid stand taken by the appellants and hence the judgment and order dated 22.4.2009 and 30.7.2009 respectively deserve to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urges that the appellants did not comply with either the interim orders passed in the year 1999 or the final judgment dated 22.4.2009 and 30.7.2009, and it is only when the contempt matters were pressed then the appellants have filed these highly belated appeals. It is submitted that the answering respondents possess the qualifications and that the allegations that their claim is founded on the basis of fake and forged appointment orders is unfounded and without putting the answering respondents to any notice in this regard. 10. Sri Mishra further submits that it was during the pendency of the contempt petitions that the inquiry has been conducted but the order dated 30.6.2010 has been made known to the respondents only through these appeals and the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the answering respondents were not made aware of the contents of the report, which had been made the basis of passing of the order dated 30.6.2010. He further submits that the learned Single Judges, even otherwise, found the earlier directions issued on 17.4.1999 to be in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the writ petitions were allowed after taking notice of the entire facts as brought on record. 11. Learned counsels agree that the matter be disposed of finally as pleadings are on record and on the basis of the submissions already advanced. 12. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge indicates that the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 17.4.1999 was quashed on the ground of its vagueness leaving it open to the District Basic Education Officer to hold an inquiry and pass an order. 12. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge indicates that the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 17.4.1999 was quashed on the ground of its vagueness leaving it open to the District Basic Education Officer to hold an inquiry and pass an order. The order passed by the District Basic Education Officer under challenge dated 17.4.1999 is quoted below : Þi=kad% 98&105@99&2000 fnukad 17&4&99 fo"k;%& QthZ fu;qfDr i=ksa ds laca/k esaA &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& egksn;] esjs laKku esa vk;k gS fd tuin ,Vk esa dqN rFkk dfFkr i=kpkj ch0Vh0lh0 izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ QthZ fu;qfDr i= ysdj ifj"knh; fo|ky;ksa esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq igqp jgs gSaA vki mUgsa dnkfi dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u gksus nsaA ;fn bl izdkj dk dksbZ dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k x;k gks rks mls mifLFkr iaftdk ij gLrk{kj u djus nsA rFkk bl izdkj ds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;s x;s QthZ fu;qfDr i=ksa ls v/kksgLrk{kjh dks rqjUr voxr djk;sA rkfd buds fo:) oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk ldsA blesa fdlh izdkj dh f’kfFkyrk ds fy;s lEcaf/kr lgk;d csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh Lo;a mRrjnkbZ gksxsA Hkonh; g- viBuh; ¼dq- mfeZyk lDlsuk½ ,VkA 17-4-99 i`-l-@ 99&2000 fnukad oghaA izfrfyfi fuEukafdr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsarq izsf"kr%& 1- ftykf/kdkjh] ,VkA 2- f’k{kk funs’kd A csf’kdA m-iz- y[kumA 3- lfpo csf’kd f’k{kk ifj"kn m-iz- bykgkcknA 4- foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh csf’kd f’k{kk] ,VkA 5- la;qDr f’k{kk funs’kd vkxjk e.My vkxjkA 6- e.Myh; f’k{kk funs’kd]A csf’kdA vkxjkA g- viBuh; ¼dq- mfeZyk lDlsuk½ ,VkA 13. The appellants, after the challenge was raised to the said order and an interim order was passed quoted hereinabove, did not comply with the same possibly under the impression that the stay vacation application and counter-affidavit had been filed in the writ petitions. The appellants, therefore, took their own time during the pendency of the writ petitions for almost 10 years to conduct an enquiry and they woke up only after the contempt petitions were moved. The appellants, therefore, on their own count delayed the matter. It is only after the decision in the writ petitions that they proceeded to get an inquiry conducted in which it is alleged that the respondents have been allowed to participate. 14. It is the Assistant Basic Education Officer-I, District Etah who was called upon to conduct the inquiry vide order dated 8.4.2010 and the said officer submitted his report to the District Basic Education Officer. 14. It is the Assistant Basic Education Officer-I, District Etah who was called upon to conduct the inquiry vide order dated 8.4.2010 and the said officer submitted his report to the District Basic Education Officer. It is undisputed that the District Basic Education Officer has proceeded to pass the order on 30.6.2010 without affording an opportunity to the respondents-petitioners to contest the contents of the said report and without providing any time to file any objection to the same. The order dated 30.6.2010 has come into existence during the pendency of the proceedings in the aforesaid circumstances. 15. The respondents-petitioners, therefore, contend that the order dated 30.6.2010 reflect complete miscarriage of justice and the same is a nullity as being in violation of principle of natural justice. Upon an examination of the contents of the said order dated 30.6.2010, we are satisfied that the submission of the respondents-petitioners to that extent is correct. 16. In view of the aforesaid position that emerges, it would be in the interest of justice that the respondents-petitioners are given liberty to object to the report submitted by the Assistant Basic Education Officer and then the District Basic Education Officer may proceed to pass an appropriate order accordingly. To this cause Sri Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellants has no objection. Even otherwise it is trite law that subsequent events relating to the controversy can be taken judicial notice of and the relief can be moulded to do complete justice between the parties. 17. Accordingly, the order dated 30.6.2010 is set aside and we direct the District Basic Education to put the respondents-petitioners to notice and give them an opportunity to object to the findings of the Inquiry Officer and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate order within 8 weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 18. However, passing of this order will not entitle the respondents-petitioners for either reinstatement in service or payment of salary as directed by the learned Single Judges till the matter is decided by the District Basic Education Officer. To that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judges dated 22.4.2009 and 30.7.2009 respectively are modified and all the three appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 19. No order as to cost. ————