JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. An order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut, dated 22.2.2020 contained in Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition is challenged in this petition. vide this order an authorised controller has been appointed to manage the petitioner institution, which is a recognised intermediate college. The order is assailed on the ground that the Joint Director of Education has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and that the principle of natural justice has also been violated. 2. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 opposes the writ petition. 3. The order records that the committee of management has violated Clauses-4, 5 and 6(1) of the Scheme of Administration and, therefore, its action taken on 18.5.2018 and 20.9.2019 is illegal. It is further recorded that a notice has been issued on 13.2.2020 calling upon the manager of the institution to submit his reply within a period of one week and as no reply has been received an authorised controller is appointed to manage the institution. The order also refers to some inquiry report submitted on 17.1.2020. 4. Section 16D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 contemplate that an order appointing the authorised controller can be passed by the State Government. The Joint Director of Education is not the authority in that regard. Even in case the Joint Director of Education intended to exercise his authority under the Scheme of Administration, he was expected to confront the managing committee with the materials which are relied upon against it. There is nothing on record to show that the inquiry report dated 17.1.2020 has been given to the petitioner. The authority has also not satisfied himself that the notice issued dated 13.2.2020 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly asserted that the notice on 13.2.2020 has actually never been served upon him. Contention is that the order impugned is clearly violative of principles of natural justice. 5. Though the petition is opposed but it is not shown on behalf of the respondents that any adequate opportunity of hearing has been served to the petitioner. Neither the inquiry report has been given nor any reasonable time has been allowed to the petitioner committee to submit its reply. 6. 5. Though the petition is opposed but it is not shown on behalf of the respondents that any adequate opportunity of hearing has been served to the petitioner. Neither the inquiry report has been given nor any reasonable time has been allowed to the petitioner committee to submit its reply. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that instead of keeping the matter pending and inviting a counter-affidavit the authority concerned be permitted to revisit the issue. In such view of the matter and with, the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is disposed off at this stage even without calling for affidavit to be filed in the matter. 7. Accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.2.2020 passed by the Joint Director of Education is quashed. Petitioner shall be allowed to continue in accordance with the scheme of administration. It would, however, be open for the Joint Director of Education to proceed afresh, in accordance with law.