JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of her termination dated 12.2.1988. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari invited applications for appointment on direct recruitment of 1000 Assistant Teachers in a Senior Basic School run by the Board. It is stated that out of those newly created post twenty post were allocated for district Bareilly. The process for the recruitment against the appointment of the newly created post was initiated by the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. An advertisement was published in the newspaper. The petitioner applied against the said post. In pursuance thereof she was found suitable by the Selection Committee and appointment letter dated 2.8.1985 was issued in her favour from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, under the seal and signature of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. A copy of the appointment letter is brought on the record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In compliance thereof the petitioner joined her post and started functioning.The Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 12.2.1988 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that selection of the petitioner was irregular and against the Rules, thus it was terminated with immediate effect. It is stated that petitioner’s services were terminated without giving any opportunity or notice and her appointment was made by the Selection Committee in terms of the Rules. The petitioner aggrieved by her termination order preferred writ petition before this Court. 2. It is also stated that alongwith the petitioner one Km. Alpana Misra was also appointed on the same date by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari against the twenty newly created post and she has also preferred a writ petition against her termination order which is also dated 12.2.1988 by means of Writ Petition No. 4137 of 1988 (Km. Alpana Misra v. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Women) Bareilly and another). This Court allowed the writ petition on 30.10.2003, and termination order dated 12.2.1988 was quashed. In the judgement of this Court it was mentioned that no counter-affidavit was filed and therefore the averments made in the writ petition was accepted as correct by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ petition was allowed. This Court allowed the writ petition on 30.10.2003, and termination order dated 12.2.1988 was quashed. In the judgement of this Court it was mentioned that no counter-affidavit was filed and therefore the averments made in the writ petition was accepted as correct by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ petition was allowed. This Court directed the learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to seek instruction with regard to status of Km. Alpana Misra. In compliance of the order of this Court an affidavit has been filed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari wherein it is stated that Km.Alpana Misra is working in the institution and no Special Appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. A counter-affidavit has been filed. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad vide communication dated 17th September, 1984 has clarified that at first sanctioned post would be filled up after preparing seniority list of working Head-Master/Teachers in accordance with U.P.Basic Shiksha Parisahd (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. In the present case no such procedure was adopted and the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sanskrit Teacher in Kanya Junior High School, Kajitola, Bareilly directly, as such the direct appointment of the petitioner is illegal. It is stated that in compliance of the order of the Secretary the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has issued termination letter who is the competent authority under the U.P.Basic Shiksha Parisahd Teachers Service Rules, 1981. At the time of moving of the writ petition a Division Bench on 20.5.1988 stayed the termination order of the petitioner. 3. I have heard Sri B.B.Paul learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by A.B.Paul, Advocate and sri K.S.Shukla learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari the respondent No. 1 herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the appointment letter it is established that the petitioner was appointed through proper Selection Committee by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and after three years of service without any notice or opportunity her services have been terminated on wholly non existent grounds. He further urged that Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short Rules,1981), provides that in case a teacher is not available for promotion then the post can be filled by the direct recruitment. He further urged that Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short Rules,1981), provides that in case a teacher is not available for promotion then the post can be filled by the direct recruitment. He further urged that similarly placed Assistant Teacher is still continuing and neither any special appeal nor recall application has been filed against the judgement of this Court in Km. Alpana Misra’s case. 5. Sri K.S.Shukla, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari submits that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to Rule 5 (b) (iii) of the Rules, 1981 as the appointment against the Assistant Teacher ought to have been made by promotion as provided under Rule,1981 and on this ground appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the Rule, therefore, her services have been rightly terminated. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The institution is run by the Board and provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 are applicable in respect of teachers of the institution. It is undisputed fact that twenty new posts have been created in district Bareilly. The petitioner’s appointment was made by the Selection Committee which is evident from the appointment letter and this fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. As regards the submissions that the post ought to have been filled by the promotion the proviso of Rule 5 of the Rules,1981 provides that in case the candidate is not available for promotion then direct recruitment can be resorted to. 7. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that before cancelling the appointment letter of the petitioner any notice or opportunity was given to her. A teacher who has worked for more than three years and there is nothing in the counter-affidavit with regard unsatisfactory work of the petitioner. A notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner before terminating her service. It is a trite law that if any action of a statutory authority or administrative authority entails a civil consequences then the Rules of Natural Justice are engrained in the Rules unless it is specifically excluded by the Statutory provisions. 8. A notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner before terminating her service. It is a trite law that if any action of a statutory authority or administrative authority entails a civil consequences then the Rules of Natural Justice are engrained in the Rules unless it is specifically excluded by the Statutory provisions. 8. In the present case in paragraphs 15 and 16 it has been categorically stated that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before her services have been terminated. The said paragraph has been replied in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit where a bald statement has been made that contents of paragraph 15 of the writ petition are incorrect and denied. There is no specific denial in the counter-affidavit to the said averment of the fact. Therefore, the Court has no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 15 of the writ petition. From the aforesaid facts it is established that the order has been passed in flagrant violation of natural justice and on this ground alone the order is vitiated. 9. As regards the submissions of the learned for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the appointment ought to have been made by promotion no detail facts have been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that how many candidates were eligible for promotion in district Bareilly. From the pleadings of the counter-affidavit as well as from the impugned order it is demonstrably established that the order has been passed simply on the dictate of the Secretary of the Board without application of mind under Rule,1981. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari is the appropriate authority to take the decision if statutes confer power on the statutory authority then the said power ought to be exercised by the officer concerned after due application of mind. In the present case the Basic Shiksha Adhikari without application of mind has terminated the services of the petitioner simply on a Circular issued by the Secretary of the Board. In may view the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, has not exercised his statutory power properly in accordance with law as he failed to apply his mind at all with regard to the aforesaid facts. 10. I have carefully considered the material on record and submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In my view for the aforestated reasons the impugned order needs to be set aside. 10. I have carefully considered the material on record and submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In my view for the aforestated reasons the impugned order needs to be set aside. accordingly it is set aside. As the impugned order is set aside a direction is issued to respondent to allow the petitioner to join her post as Assistant Teacher and her salary shall be paid regularly. Petitioner shall be deemed to continue in service. However, the salary from 2009 upto her joining shall not be paid but this period shall be treated in service for other purposes including post retiral benefits. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 10.11.1997. It is stated at Bar that the petitioner continued even after the dismissal of the writ petition till 2009 when the order dated 10.11.1997 came to her knowledge she made Recall/Restoration Application which was rejected on 16.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order she preferred Special Appeal No. 1737 of 2010 (Smt. Asha Devi Saxena v. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Woman) Bareilly and another) which was allowed on 9th May, 2011 and order dated 16th August, 2010 and 10.November, 1997 (dismissal of the writ petition) was set aside and the writ petition was restored to its original number. As the writ petition was restored back the petitioner would be entitled for all the benefits during this period. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. —————