Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—The learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for leave to annex the Audit Report of 2010-2011 as an Annexure to the petition. Permission to do so, is granted. The needful be done, forthwith. 2. Rule. Mr. Rashesh A. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Notice of Rule for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petition is being heard finally today. As no relief has been sought against Respondent No. 3, there is no requirement of issuing Rule to the said respondent. 3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:— “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.10.2008 and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is not liable to deposit the amount with the Government as per the order dated 15.10.2008; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Government to repay the amount of Rs. 10,800/- to the petitioner forthwith which is deducted from the maintenance grant of the institution from the year 2010-11, with interest; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 15.10.2008 and further be pleased to direct the District Education Officer to repay the amount of Rs.10,800/- deducted from the maintenance grant of the petitioner Management; (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Resp. No. 1 Commissioner to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within the time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; (E) Be pleased to pass such and further relief’s as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the Public Trusts Act, and is running a secondary school that receives 100% grant from the State Government. The salaries of its employees are paid directly under the Direct Payment Scheme (D.P.S.), and the maintenance grant is given to the institution, for running the administration of the school. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the Public Trusts Act, and is running a secondary school that receives 100% grant from the State Government. The salaries of its employees are paid directly under the Direct Payment Scheme (D.P.S.), and the maintenance grant is given to the institution, for running the administration of the school. The post of peon had fallen vacant in the said institution, therefore, the petitioner-school had applied for a No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) from the District Eduction Officer who, by letter dated 06.02.1992, granted the said N.O.C. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper ‘Fulchhab’ on 23.02.1992, inviting applications for the post of Peon. Respondent No. 3, along with other candidates, applied for the said post. In his application dated 24.02.1992, Respondent No. 3 has mentioned his qualification as standard VII pass and has also annexed a School Leaving Certificate. The duly constituted committee, including a representative of the respondent authorities, selected Respondent No. 3, as per Rules, for the post of peon in the petitioner’s school. Thereafter, approval for the appointment of Respondent No. 3 was granted by the District Education Officer, vide letter dated 13.05.1992. On 15.06.2006, Respondent No. 3 submitted his resignation, which was accepted after due inquiry, with effect from 20.06.2006. Accordingly, District Education Officer also accepted the resignation of Respondent No. 3 on 15.06.2006, and Respondent No. 3 was relieved from the school by letter dated 20.06.2006. After about one and a half years, the District Education Officer has directed the petitioner institution to submit the entire papers pertaining to the appointment procedure of Respondent No. 3, including the School Leaving Certificate, as the educational qualification of Respondent No. 3 was not found to be genuine. After a vigilance inquiry was held, the District Education Officer issued show-cause notice dated 17.06.2008, informing the petitioner institution to hold necessary inquiry against Respondent No. 3. The petitioner institution was also informed that the salary of Respondent No. 3 would be recovered from the grant of the school, from the date of his appointment, till 20.06.2006. The petitioner institution replied to the District Education Officer. The petitioner institution was also informed that the salary of Respondent No. 3 would be recovered from the grant of the school, from the date of his appointment, till 20.06.2006. The petitioner institution replied to the District Education Officer. After considering the same, order dated 15.10.2008, came to be passed by the District Education Officer, whereby the petitioner institution has been called upon to deposit the entire amount of salary of Respondent No. 3 from the date of his appointment, i.e. 14.05.1992 to 20.06.2006, forthwith in the Treasury, by chalan. The petitioner institution was also informed that a 10% cut from the maintenance grant of the year 2008-2009 would be effected. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2008, the petitioner institution filed an appeal against the same on 06.11.2008, before the Commissioner of Mid-Day Meals and Schools(respondent No. 1). 5. The case of the petitioner is that, though there has been no decision upon the said appeal till date, and the order dated 15.10.2008 was not implemented for about three years, the respondent authorities have now deducted Rs.10,800/- from the grant being given to the petitioner institution, on 25.02.2011. Hence, the petition. 6. This Court has heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rashesh A. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 7. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal against the order dated 15.10.2008, the respondent authorities ought not to have effected recovery from the grant of the petitioner institution, especially as the institution is in no way at fault, for any fraud that may have been committed by Respondent No. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court, the document annexed at Annexure-”X” to the petition, dated 23.08.2002, addressed by the Office of the Commissioner, Mid-Day Meals to all District Education Officers. It is submitted that by way of this communication, Respondent No. 1 has instructed all District Education Officers not to make recoveries or to cut the grants of any institution where appeals are pending due to audit objection. It is submitted that though the grievance of the petitioner does not pertain to audit objection, but the same analogy ought to be followed, as the order of the District Education Officer dated 15.10.2008 is under challenge. It is submitted that though the grievance of the petitioner does not pertain to audit objection, but the same analogy ought to be followed, as the order of the District Education Officer dated 15.10.2008 is under challenge. By effecting the cut, the appeal of the petitioner institution has almost been rendered infructuous. 8. Mr. Rashesh A. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that if appropriate directions are issued, the appeal can be heard and decided at an early date. 9. As is clear from the record, and the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the appeal of the petitioner institution against the order dated 15.10.2008 of the District Education Officer, is still pending decision. The main issue involved in the appeal is the deduction from the grant given to petitioner institution due to a false certificate given by Respondent No. 3. Without having decided the appeal, the respondent authorities have begun to make recoveries from the grant, even though the legality and validity of the order challenged in appeal is in issue, pending decision of the appeal. This would amount to pre-judging the issue, and if such a situation continues, the appeal of the petitioner would become infructuous, and there would be nothing left to decide. 10. For the aforestated reasons, in the considered view of this Court, the following directions would meet the interest of justice: (a) Respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Mid-Day Meals and Schools, shall consider and decide the appeal dated 06.11.2008, filed by the petitioner institution, after giving a representative of the petitioner institution, an opportunity of personal hearing. The date of hearing shall be intimated to the petitioner institution within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. (b) Thereafter, a final decision shall be taken, within a period of four weeks of the personal hearing. (c) Till such time as the decision is taken, no further recovery/deduction shall be made pursuant to order dated 15.10.2008, from the grant of the petitioner. If in the event that the decision in the appeal is in favour of the petitioner, a consequential order; making good the amount already deducted, shall follow. 11. The petition is partly-allowed, to the above extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to cost. Direct Service of this order is permitted. P P P P P