K.N.SINGH,J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as teacher in the C.T. Grade in the Patel Memorial Intermediate College, Atraulia, Azamgarh an institution aided and recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. He was later on promoted to the L.T. Grade. In 1973, there was a vacancy in the higher grade of lecturer in the subject of economics. The petitioner as well as certain other teachers applied for the same. The Committee of Man­agement decided to fill up this vacancy by promotion. After selec­tion the name of Surya Narain Dhar Dwivedi, another teacher of the College and the petitioner's name was forwarded to the District Ins­pector of Schools for his approval. The recommendation was made in the order of preference. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated January 25, 1974 held that Surya Narain Dhar Dwivedi was not entitled to promotion as he did not fulfil the requisite qualifi­cations laid down in the Regulations, he accorded approval to the petitioner's appointment. The Committee of Management there-"after appointed the petitioner and he commenced functioning as lec­turer. Thereupon Surya Narain Dhar Dwivedi and one Shyam Narain Singh, another teacher who was a candidate for promotion to the lecturer's grade made representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. After obtaining report from the District Ins­pector of Schools, the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated July 20, 1974 directed the District Inspector of School to re­view and recall his order granting approval to the petitioner's pro­motion in the lecturer's grade and issued directions to the Managing Committee to hold fresh selection. In pursuance of the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education, the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated January 16, 1975 informed the Manag­ing Committee that the order dated January 25, 1974 granting appro­val for the petitioner's promotion to the lecturer's grade is set aside and the Managing Committee is directed to hold fresh selection. It appears that since the Managing Committee was satisfied with the petitioner's work it did not take any action in the matter. The Dis­trict Inspector of Schools thereupon addressed another letter to the Managing Committee on May 3, 1975 directing it to comply with his salary already paid to the petitioner in the lecturer's grade. Ag­grieved the petitioner filed this petition challenging the validity of the orders of the Deputy Director of Education as well as that of the District Inspector of Schools.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the Deputy Direc­tor of Education has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the District Inspector of Schools for recalling his orders granting approval to the petitioner's promotion to the lecturer's grade, as no appeal had been preferred by the Managing Committee against the orders of the Dis­trict Inspector of Schools dated January 25, 1974. Section 16-F of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless he possesses the prescribed qualifications and he is recommended by the Selection Committee constituted under the Act and his appointment is approv­ed by the District Inspector of Schools in the case of a teacher and the Deputy Director of Education in the case of Headmaster and Prin­cipal of the Institution sub-section (3) of Section 16-F provides that where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the District Ins­pector of Schools as the case may be disapproved any name proposed by the management for appointment as Principal, Headmaster or teacher, the management may within three weeks of the receipt of the disapproval make a representation against it to the Director, in the case of disapproval being given by the Deputy Director of Educa­tion, but in the case of teacher the representation may be made be­fore the Regional Deputy Director of Education and his decision is final in the matter. Sub-section (4) further provides that if the recommendations made by the Selection Committee or the Managing Committee is disapproved and the representation of the manage­ment is rejected either by the Deputy Director or Director of Educa­tion, the Selection Committee or the Managing Committee may pro­ceed to recommend another name for approval as provided under Section 16-F of the Act. There is no dispute that selection for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics was made by the Managing Committee in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Regula­tions framed there under and all the requisite procedure was fol­lowed. There is further no dispute that the Committee of Manage­ment made its recommendation to the District Inspector of Schools in order of preference. It placed Surya Narain Dhar Dwivedi a teacher of the College at serial No. 1 while the petitioner's name was placed at serial No. 2. There is further no dispute that Surya Narain Dhar Dwivedi who was recommended at serial No. 1 was not quali­fied for promotion to the lecturer's post as he had not completed 5 years of service as required by the Regulations. The District Ins­pector of Schools accorded approval to the petitioner's appointment. Admittedly the Committee of Management was satisfied with the order of the District Inspector of Schools as it did not prefer any re­presentation against the disapproval of its proposal in respect of Surya Narain Dhar Dwivedi, instead the Committee of Management appointed the petitioner as lecturer in Economic and it appears to be fully satisfied with his work. In the absence of any representation as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 16-F of the Act, the Deputy Director of Education had no authority or jurisdiction to set aside the order of District Inspector of Schools. The Act and the Regulations framed thereunder do not contain any provision confer­ring any right of representation to a rival candidate to challenge the order of the District Inspector of Schools granting approval. While granting approval or disapproval the Deputy Director of Education as well as the District Inspector of Schools exercised statutory functions in accordance with the provisions conferred in the Act and Regula­tion. They are not entitled to exercise any power which is not con­ferred on them by the statutory provisions in matters relating to the grant of approval. The Deputy Director of Education is a higher authority and in administrative matters he is entitled to issue direc­tions to the District Inspector of Schools who is a subordinate authority, but in matter relating to grant of approval the Deputy Director of Education has jurisdiction to issue direction or set aside the order of approval only when a representation as contemplated by sub-sec­tion (3) of Section 16-F is made before him. In the absence of any representation of the Managing Committee the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools granting approval or to issue directions to him to review or recall his order.
(3.) IT is urged that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdic­tion to review or recall any order granting approval for the appoint­ment of a teacher. The Act and the Regulations do not confer power on the District Inspector of Schools to review or recall his order suo motu or on the application made by any aggrieved party. In the ab­sence of any statutory provisions, once the District Inspector of Schools accords approval or disapproves the proposed appointment of a teacher, he is not empowered to review his order, but there is ex­ception to this rule well recognised by the general law of review. It is well settled principal that a public authority while exercising sta­tutory powers is entitled to review its orders if it is satisfied that the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. If an order is ob­tained by practising fraud or misrepresentation, the order is nullity and as such the authority concerned is empowered to review its order and pass a fresh order. But in a case where the order is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation the statutory authority has no juris­diction to review its order unless provision to that effect is contained in the Act or the Rules. In the instant case there is no statutory pro­vision either under the Act or under the Regulations conferring po­wer on the District Inspector of Schools to review his order granting approval. There is further no dispute that the order of approval was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. All the necessary papers and facts were placed by the Managing Committee before the Dis­trict Inspector of Schools and he passed the order on merits. The District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to review his order.;