IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 796 of 2010 Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Dewali W/o Sri Kishor Dewali …. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …. Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, learned cousnel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 25-08-2010 ( Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that on 11-6-2003, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Inter College Ram Ashram Jakholi, District Rudraprayag. Vide order dated 06-08-2010(Annexure No.2 to the writ petition), as per her qualification and seniority, she was promoted and posted on the post of Lecturer, in Government Inter College Gauchar, by respondent No.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the promotion of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 25-08-2010(Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), on the ground that there is no vacancy on the post of Lecturer, Home Science in the general cadre and by mistake the petitioner has been promoted 2 on the post of Lecturer, Home Science in the School of Women Branch. Reliance has been placed on the case of Kumari Jatindra Phoolka Vs. Director of Education and others, reported in 1983, U.P.L.B.E.C., page 21, in which the Allahabad High Court has held that order granting approval or disapproval without giving opportunity, is illegal. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that this writ petition be disposed of today itself without inviting the counter affidavit. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the impugned order of cancellation of promotion, has been passed by the respondent No.3, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is against the principle of natural justice, as well as against the spirit of law laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the above cited case. In the above circumstances, opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is necessary. Hence, the respondent No.3 is directed to take decision afresh in this matter, after hearing the petitioner, and pass a reasoned and speaking order, whether the petitioner was appointed in general cadre or in special cadre of Women Branch, within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall file certified copy of this order, along with her representation, if any, before the respondent No.3, within a week. Till the fresh decision is taken by the respondent No.3, the impugned order shall remain in abeyance. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Dated: 6-9-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB