Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) Petitioner, Mohan Lal Sharma is aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 7th October, 1974, whereby he has cancelled his earlier order of 20th September, 1974, On 20th September, 1974 the Inspector granted approval to the proposal of the Management of the National Public Inter College, Jalalabad District Muzaffarnagar for appointment of Mohan Lal Sharma on the post of lecturer in Physics in the college. By the impugned order that approval has been cancelled. In the impugned order of cancellation the Inspector states that he had initially granted approval to the appointment of Moham Lal Sharma but the Principal of the college has made a representation that the name of Mahendra Kumar Jain had been proposed for the post of lecturer in Physics and not the name of Mohan Lal Sharma. He has also mentioned that Mahendra Kumar Jain was working as a Demonstrator in the college and for that reason the post of Demonstrator was later advertised. He goes on to state that on this representation the Manager gave his explanation which was not satisfactory. For this reason he has cancelled the earlier order of 20th September, 1974. In Radhey Shyam Chaubhe and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others, (1978) 4 ALR 14, a Division Bench of this Court has held that once the District Inspector of Schools has granted approval to the petitioners appointment on a permanent post on probation, he has no jurisdiction to review his order. There is no provision in the Intermediate Education Act or in the regulations framed thereunder conferring power on the District Inspector of Schools to review an order according approval under section 16-E of the Act. The District Inspector of Schools, like any other statutory authority, has, however power to recall or revoke its order if it is obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. Even assaming that the order of approval was passed under some mistake, the Inspector had no jurisdiction to revoke the same unless some opportunity of explanation of hearing was given to the petitioner because once an approval is granted to the appointment of a teacher and if orders of his appointment are issued, vested rights are created in his favour.
(2.) In the present case, the Inspector obviously acted on the footing that there has been a mistake. He seems to be of the view that the Management had recommended the name of Mahendra Kumar. Tain while he accorded approval to Mohan Lal Sharma. But it is not denied that the Inspector did not afford the petitioner any opportunity of hearing or explanation. Reliance was placed upon the representation made by the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools. This representation was made to convey the petitioners complaint against the action of Principal in not giving him charge of the post even though the Inspector had approved his appointment. The petitioners case is that he had no knowledge of the representation made by the Principal before the inspector and he had certainly no Information or knowledge about the proceedings pending before the Inspector. The Inspector never gave the petitioner any opportunity of hearing or explanation. The point raised before the Inspector was as to whose name was recommended by the college. This point was raised by the Principal of the college. On this question of feet the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing before the Inspector. He was entitled to an opportunity. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7th October, 1974 is quashed. The matter sent back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order expeditiously in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties will bear the own costs. Petition allowed;