JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—By means of present writ petition, petitioners have approached the Court for quashing the order dated 20th February, 2009, whereby their services have been terminated as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Junior Basic Schools run by District Basic Education Board U.P. Allahabad. The order impugned is dated 20th February, 2009 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. At the very outset Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Counsel stated that in view of the order dated 13th December, 2016 passed in writ petition No. 12693 of 2009, the writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 11 have already stood dismissed in view of the order passed by Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 229 of 2010. However, in respect of the remaining writ petitioners, the matter was left open for the learned Single Judge to proceed further and this is how the present petitioner is now to be heard only in respect of petitioner Nos. 9 to 31 excluding the petitioner Nos. 10 and 11. The order of Division Bench dated 13th December, 2016 in Special Appeal Defective No. 229 of 2010 is quoted hereunder: “This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 33294 of 1995 Mohd. Yunus and others v. State of U.P. and others as also against the judgment and order dated 2.2.2010 passed on Review/Recall Application No. 59935 of 2009. The record reflects that Writ Petition No. 33294 of 1995 was decided by learned Single Judge on merits and it was dismissed. The order dated 23.4.2002 itself records that one M.M.L. Srivastava was heard on behalf of petitioner while Standing Counsel was heard on behalf of respondents. An application for recall/review of the said judgment dated 23.4.2002 was filed after 7 years of the said judgment, to be exact on 16.2.2009. The learned Single Judge under the order dated 2.2.2010 has recorded that there is absolutely no plausible reason for condoning the delay of 7 years in making of the application for recall/review. It has been recorded that the petitioner is not correct in stating that he was not aware of the order dated 23.4.2002 when the writ petition was decided after hearing his counsel. We see no merit in the present appeal. Dismissed.” 4. It has been recorded that the petitioner is not correct in stating that he was not aware of the order dated 23.4.2002 when the writ petition was decided after hearing his counsel. We see no merit in the present appeal. Dismissed.” 4. The order passed by Division Bench in present writ-A No. 12693 of 2009 is quoted hereunder: “Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents states that he is not representing respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in the Special Appeal No. 229 of 2010. We may record that the case of petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 11 stand decided against them in view of the order passed by us today in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 229 of 2010. For both the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition so far as petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 11 are concerned is dismissed. So far as the petitioner Nos. 9 to 31 are concerned, we find that the matter is cognizable by learned Single Judge and therefore the writ petition be listed before the appropriate learned Single Judge.” 5. Thus the present writ petition is taken up for hearing only in respect of petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 12 to 31. The facts giving rise to the present controversy trace back to the selection held by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 6th August, 1995 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur for selection of Urdu Teachers. It appears that on account of some complaint District Magistrate stalled further proceedings of appointment which led to the writ petition No. 33294 of 1995 by the present petitioners Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 11, in which interim order was passed staying the order of the District Magistrate and those very petitioners were issued appointment orders. The writ petition No. 33294 of 1995 remained pending and in the meanwhile other petitioners were offered appointment by the District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur vide appointment letters dated 30.9.2005. It is worth noticeable that order of appointment dated 30.9.2005 in respect of petitioners No. 9 and 12 to 31 does not make any reference to any interim order of the Court and the writ petition. Relevant extract of the appointment order dated 31st September, 2005 is reproduced hereunder. It is worth noticeable that order of appointment dated 30.9.2005 in respect of petitioners No. 9 and 12 to 31 does not make any reference to any interim order of the Court and the writ petition. Relevant extract of the appointment order dated 31st September, 2005 is reproduced hereunder. ^^csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk lapkfyr tuin ds izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa mnwZ Hkk"kk ds v/;kiu gsrq p;u lfefr }kjk p;fur fuEufyf[kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vLFkk;h fu;qfDr muds uke ds lEeq[k vafdr fo|ky;ksa ,oa osruØe esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls dh tkrh gSA ;g fu;qfDr iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h gS rFkk fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk fdlh Hkh le; fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fujLr dh tk ldrh gSA vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vkosnu i=@lk{kkRdkj ds le; izLrqr izek.k&i=ksa esa ;fn dHkh ckn esa Hkh dksbZ folaxfr ;k rF; dks fNik;k tkuk ik;k tkrk gS rks ;g fu;qfDr fujLr dj nh tk;sxh ftlds fy, vH;FkhZ iw.kZ:i ls mRrjnk;h gksxkA** “Following candidates are being given appointment with effect from the date of their taking charge temporarily for teaching Urdu language on the basis of selection held by Selection Committee for the Schools run by the Basic Siksha Parishad. Appointment is purely temporary and in accordance with rules their services are liable to be terminated without any prior notice. In case of any difference in the records of the candidates produced at the time of application/interview is detected or any concealment of fact is found, this appointment shall stand cancelled automatically.” (Translated by Court) 6. Writ petition No. 33294 of 1995 was got dismissed on 23rd April, 2002 and those very petitioners No. 1 to 8-10 and 11 did not care for the same. It appears that coming to know about the dismissal of writ petition as dismissed in default vide order dated 20th February, 2009 communicate by the Office Chief Standing Counsel by one stroke of pen all the Urdu Teachers including the petitioners who were appointed pursuant to the selection held in the order 1995, were terminated on the ground that they were appointed pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 22nd November, 1994 and since writ petition had been dismissed they were also liable to be terminated from service. This order dated 21st February, 2009, impugned in writ petition was not challenged by those teachers who were petitioners in writ petition No. 33294 of 1995 (petitioner 1 to 8, 10,11 and 12 herein this petition) that came to be dismissed by this Court. 7. On 2nd February, 2010 after about 8 years recall application was filed bearing No. 5993 of 2009 and the same was also dismissed against which, the special appeal defective No. 229 of 2010 was also dismissed. Thus the claim of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8,10,11 and 12 for non appointment even after selection came to end with dismissal of their writ petition and finally special appeal. 8. I have gone through the records and have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. 9. From the very perusal of the order of appointment dated 30th September 2005 (supra) issued by the District Basic Education Officer in respect of the petitioner Nos. 9,12 to 31, it is clear that this order of appointment was not given in compliance to any interim order of this Court nor, there is any reference to any writ petition in the same and therefore, argument is that the order dated 20th February, 2009 wrongly records that these teachers namely, petitioners were appointed under the interim order of the Court and since the said writ petition has been dismissed, therefore, their services were also liable to be terminated carries substance. It is a fact that the petitioners have continued in service since 2005 till 20.2.2009. Under the circumstances if any order was to be passed by the District Basic Education Officer, the minimum requirement of show-cause notice was a must so that at-least petitioners could put up their defence. 10. It is not a case where any misrepresentation or fraud was committed at the end of the petitioners so as to entitle the respondent not to hold any enquiry into the matter and to proceed ex parte to dispense with services of the petitioners. Therefore, administrative action that prejudices the interest of party and has adverse civil consequences, the doctrine of Audi alteram partem is sine qua non. 11. The question here emerges for consideration as to whether there was any application of mind by the authority while passing the order. Therefore, administrative action that prejudices the interest of party and has adverse civil consequences, the doctrine of Audi alteram partem is sine qua non. 11. The question here emerges for consideration as to whether there was any application of mind by the authority while passing the order. One who take a particular plea for action must disclose reasons also for taking such plea and known rule of Law is that reasons assigned must be cogent and rational. If decision taken is not relevant or exercise of power is not reasonable, such exercise of power is rendered arbitrary being whimsical and if put on the testing anvil of Article 14 of the constitution of India, it is liable to be held unfair and unjust action and of course, casting serious doubt over bona fides of the authority in such administrative decision making. 12. Even while right to post invites procedural compliance of rule of equality Law, the Constitution Bench in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1974 AIR 555, extended principle of Article 14 and 16 to the public servant holding officiating position. Speaking for himself, Y.V. Chandrachud (as His Lordship then was) V.R. Krishna Iyer, and P.N. Bhagwati, J, (as His Lordship then was) thus observed vide para 85 : “It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose J., “a way of fife”, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any ;attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so Would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16.” 13. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16.” 13. In the present case, not only the reason assigned in passing the termination order is factually incorrect but order is also not unsustainable for non compliance of the principles of natural justice. Besides in view of the The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 the District basic Education Officer would not be justified in taking action without following due procedure prescribed under the rules while proceeding with termination of teachers working in schools run by Basic Education Board. 14. In the case of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14 , the Supreme Court held that “adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind.” 15. In view of above, the order dated 20th February, 2009 in so far as which relates to petitioner Nos. 8,12 to 31 is hereby quashed. It is open for the District Basic Education Officer concerned to proceed in the matter afresh if required for want of non-compliance of procedure prescribed under the rules applicable to such affidavits, but of course in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed before taking any further action against the petitioners. Since the impugned order has been set aside, the petitioners shall be reinstated with consequential benefits, however, their reinstatement shall be subject to any action if taken, in the light of observations and directions made hereinabove. 16. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.