- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-2-1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25030 of 1992, in which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 29-5-1992 (Annexure 23 to the writ petition) of the Regional High Education Officer, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 5. In the impugned order, respondent No. 5 cancelled the order previously passed by him on 12-3-1992 according approval to the appointment/promotion of the writ Petitioners, who are respondent Nos. 1 to in this appeal.
(2.) THE factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the points raised in the appeal may be stated thus. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the aforementioned writ petition against the Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 4), Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur (respondent No. 5), Regional Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur (respondent No. 6), District Inspector of Schools (respondent No. 7), District Magistrate, Deoria (respondent No. 8) and Committee of Management, Udit Narain Post Graduate College, Padrauna (appellant), praying, inter alia, for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29-5-1992 (Annexure 23) and a writ of man damus restraining respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and the appellant from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners in their respective posts of Laboratory Assistant (Botany) and Routine Grade Clerk. On being selected by the Selection Committee of the College, Brij Bhushan Singh (respondent No. 1) was appointed in the post of Laboratory Assistant (Botany), Vijai Kumar (respondent No. 2) was appointed as Routine Grade Clerk and Prabhu Nath (respondent No. 3) was promoted to the post of Routine Grade Clerk in a leave vacancy. The Regional Higher Education Officer accorded ap proval to their appointment/promotion on 11-3-1992 and appointment letters were issued to the said respondents on 12-3-1992. On a letter addressed by the District Magistrate, Deoria questioning the validity of appointment/promotion of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the Regional Higher Education Officer passed the order dated 29-5-1992, cancelling the ap proval order passed by him on 11-3-1992. As the order shows, the District Magistrate informed the Regional Higher Education Officer that neither did he him self take part in the Selection Committee nor did he nominate any Member of the Committee of Management to take part in the said selection, nor did he authorise any body to get the selection conducted. It is further stated in the order of the Regional Higher Education Officer that it had been recited in the order according approval to the appointment/promotion of respon dent Nos. 1 to 3 that in case any fact had been concealed with regard to the ap pointment/promotion, then upon such facts coming to light, the approval would become illegal and would automatically stand cancelled; on the basis of the said recital and in view of the information sub sequently received from the District Magistrate, the Regional Higher Educa tion Officer felt impelled to cancel the approval order.
(3.) THE learned single Judge in his judgment observed: - ". . . . . THE documents enclosed to the letter dated 29-2-1992 being the letter asking for ap proval show that the Selection Committee was constituted of three persons and it did not in clude the District Magistrate. Neither the counter-affidavit nor any material disclosed in course of hearing shows that approval was ob tained contending that the selection committee included the District Magistrate. Accordingly I find that there was no material in passing the impugned order to conclude that any suppres sion of relevant material was made detection whereof justified the cancellation of the ap proval. Thus, the impugned order passed on the sole ground is found to be a non-existent ground. " The learned single Judge also ob served in the order that in the impugned order, the Regional Higher Education Of ficer has reviewed his previous order, for which he has no competence, since no power of review is vested in him by any statute or statutory rule applicable to the matter.;