JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The appellant State seeks invalidation of an order passed by the learned First Court by which certain teaching staffs were permitted to continue to draw the scale of pay meant for the teaching staffs having qualification of B.Sc. Untrained. Admitted position is that the writ petitioners were appointed on different dates in the year 1982-83. Their appointment letters, to some of which our attention has been drawn by the learned Advocate for the State, stipulate that they were being appointed in the scale of Matric Untrained against Matric Trained scale. Subsequently, in the year 1988, the District Superintendent of Education had conferred on them the scale of pay of B.Sc. Untrained with effect from the date of their initial joining. A representative copy of the order to that effect dated 7th July, 1988 has been annexed at page-84 of the memo of appeal. The writ petitioners subsequently had invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P. (S) Nos. 6785 and 6795 of 2004 seeking B.Sc. Trained scale on the ground of having subsequently obtained teacher training qualification. A learned Single Judge of this Court had given them liberty to pursue the representations which were already filed at that time and that was pending before the District Superintendent of Education of the respective districts. The said authority rejected the representation of the writ petitioners. The District Superintendent of Education came to a finding that the up-gradation of the writ petitioners in the scale of B.Sc. Untrained itself was illegal and cancelled the B.Sc. Untrained scale for the writ petitioners, which they were getting all along. That decision was challenged by the writ petitioners before the learned First Court. The learned First Court on considering different authorities quashed the order passed on 6th August, 2005 and directed grant of B.Sc. trained scale to the writ petitioners from the date of their passing teacher training examination with all consequential benefits, arrears of salary etc. arising thereafter. 3. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is assailed before us by the State. Stand of the State is that there was ex-facie error in the up-gradation of scale of pay of the writ petitioners in the year 1988 and for that reason it was within power and jurisdiction of the District Superintendent of Education to invalidate that order. 3. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is assailed before us by the State. Stand of the State is that there was ex-facie error in the up-gradation of scale of pay of the writ petitioners in the year 1988 and for that reason it was within power and jurisdiction of the District Superintendent of Education to invalidate that order. Learned Advocate for the State has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Soni and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 635 ) in support of her submission that in a case where ex-facie error is found, it is not necessary always to comply with the rules of natural justice. In the case before us, the order of 1988 continued for 23 years and was passed by an authority otherwise having competence to issue such an order. Before the learned First Court, the State had taken a stand that as per the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993, the course adopted in the cases of the writ petitioners was impermissible. The learned First Court found that the writ petitioners had passed the teacher training examination on 31st March, 1993 whereas the aforesaid rules were published on 8th July, 1993. 4. In such circumstances, in our opinion, without following proper procedure, it was improper on the part of the District Superintendent of Education to abruptly terminate the order of 1988 while considering the representations of the writ petitioners. There was no lis before the concerned Authority about illegality of 1988 order. In our opinion, for the reasons already indicated, it was incumbent upon the concerned Authority to examine the legality of the order through independent proceeding upon giving opportunity of hearing to the parties affected as the said order lasted for almost quarter of a century. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. We accordingly sustain the judgment of the learned First Court. 6. The appeal is dismissed. 7. The connected application (I.A. No. 5399 of 2014) shall also stand disposed of, as we have dismissed the main appeal. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.