By the Court.—This intra Court appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7619 of 2001 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. It appears that the petitioners-appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘’appellants) were appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School after getting approval from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari of appointment. The appellants continued in service and were paid salary. On 1.1.2001, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari stopped the payment of their salary and in consequence thereof, the Committee of Management, i.e. respondent No. 6 also passed an order to the same effect on 10.1.2001. These orders were subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.

3. In the counter-affidavit, the State-respondents have come with the case that the posts against which the appellants were appointed, were never sanctioned/created by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order dated 20.7.1985 as alleged by the appellants and in fact, Basic Shiksha Adhikari is not the authority competent to create the posts. It is further stated that the Management, in collusion with the appellants had cooked up the matter and appointed the appellants against non-sanctioned posts. It is also stated that in the institution, only five posts were sanctioned and if these appointments are allowed to continue, there would be five additional posts. Taking that into consideration, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

4. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the alleged sanction/creation of posts vide order dated 20.7.1985 was never issued from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and everything is an outcome of calculated exercise of fraud cooked up by the Committee of Management in collusion with the appellants as well as the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who had granted approval for appointment of the appellants. It also transpires that on an inquiry, this fact came to notice on 12.12.2000 and thereafter the order impugned in the writ petition was passed.

5. Before the learned Single Judge, an argument was raised that the order impugned was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the same is vitiated.

6. Learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the opportunity is not a ritual, which should be offered in each and every case, dismissed the writ petition.

7. So far as the appointment of the appellants is concerned from the perusal of records, it is apparent that their appointment is an outcome of collusion of the Committee, appellants and the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari as the appellants have nowhere pleaded that the order dated 20.7.1985 through which the posts alleged to have been created, were ever issued by the Competent Authority.

8. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge with regard to non affording of opportunity of hearing to the appellants by the Competent Authority before passing the impugned order for the reason that even if had opportunity been offered to the appellants, they would not have been able to improve their case as there is nothing on record to indicate that the posts, against which the appellants were appointed, were sanctioned. On the contrary, the letter of creation of posts itself was found to be forged. In that eventuality, even if opportunity would have been offered, it would have been futile exercise. In other words providing of an opportunity at this stage would amount a useless formality.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation, (1971) 2 All ER 1278, has held that the breach of natural justice do also occur where all facts are not admitted or are not all beyond dispute but relief can be refused when the case of the applicant is not one of “real substance” or that there is no substantial possibility of his success or that the result will not be different even if natural justice is followed. The s