K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) FOUR permanent posts of teachers fell vacant in the Intermediate College, Nawarhia, Jaunpur. The Authorised; Controller who was exercising the powers of the Committee of Management of the institution issued advertisement which was published in the newspaper 'Aaj' of Varanasi on September 18, 1974. The petitioners as well as several other persons applied for the said posts. The Selection Committee constituted under the Intermediate Education Act and regulations framed there under made 'selection and recommended the name of the petitioners for appointment against the four permanent vacancies. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by the Authorised Controller for according approval to the appointment of the petitioners along with relevant papers. The District Inspector of Schools, by his letter dated December 4, 1974, accorded approval to the petitioners' appointment on permanent posts on probation for a period of one year. Thereafter, the Authorised Controller issued letters of appointment to the petitioners informing them that they have been appointed as teachers on probation for one year. The petitioners took charge and started teaching in the institution. On May 1, 1975, the District Inspector of Schools, however, informed the Authorised Controller that the appointment of the petitioners should be treated as temporary till June 30, 1975. In pursuance to the letter of the District Inspector of Schools, the Principal of the college informed the petitioners that their appointment as teachers in the institution was temporary which was to expire at the end of the session 1974-75. Aggrieved the petitioners filed this petition challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated May 1, 1975 as well as the order of the Principal of the college dated May 28, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the District Inspector of Schools had accorded approval to the petitioners' appointment on permanent posts on probation, he had no jurisdiction to review his order. We find considerable force in this contention. There is no provision under the Intermediate Education Act or in the regulations framed there under 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. But in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation or misttake, the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to revoke his order. In the instant case the petitioners have alleged that the order of approval was not obtained by mistake, fraud or misrepresentation and, as such, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to revoke his order. The District Inspector of Schools who was arrayed as respondent to the petition and to whom notices were issued by this Court has not appeared and no counter-affidavits has been filed on his behalf controverting the allegations made in this petition. In the circumstances, it is clear that the order of approval was not obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. In Rajendra Tripathi v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur and others. (1976(2) A.L.R, 518.), the precise question was considered and it was held that in a case where an order was 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 absence of any statutory provision, the District Inspector of Schools had no power to review his order granting approval. We agree with the view taken in Rajendra Tripathi's case. Learned counsel for the respondent Committee of Management urged that the order of approval was obtained by mistake and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on para 7 of the affidavit filed by the Principal of the College. The averments contained in that paragraph do not make out any case that the District Inspector of Schools had accorded approval under any mistake. The principal of the college has not filed any document in support of his averment contained in paragraph 7. Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools has not taken up any such plea before this court even though a notice of this writ petition was served on him. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to give any evidence to the averment contained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit of the Principal. But even assuming that the order of approval was passed under some mistake, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to revoke the same unless an opportunity of explanation or hearing was given to the petitioners. Once approval is granted to the appointment of a teacher and if orders of his appointment are issued, a vested right is created in favour of the teacher concerned more so in a case where a teacher is appointed in permanent vacancy on probation. That right could not be taken away by revoking the order of approval without giving opportunity to the teacher concerned as that would violate principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the petitioners were not given any opportunity before the District Inspector of Schools revoked and modified his order granting the approval to the petitioners' appointment on probation. In the circumstances, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated May 1, 1975 as well as the order of the principal dated May 28, 1975 are void. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated May 1, 1975 and the order of the principal dated May 28, 1975 and direct the respondents to treat the petitioners in service treating them as they had been appointed on probation. The petitioners are entitled to costs.;