A.N. Verma, J. - (1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this petition. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Budh Vidyapith Degree College, Naugarh (Basti) which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University through a Selection Committee. After the recommendation of the Selection Committee the papers were forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The papers included the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner in respect of M. A. Examination conducted by that University indicating that the petition has secured 57.7% marks. The Vice-Chancellor considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee and thereafter accorded his approval by an order dated 18-3-1982. It appears that subsequently it was brought to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor that his approval had been obtained on wrong facts and mis-representation. The material furnished before the Vice-Chancellor established that in fact the petitioner had obtained only 51.7% marks at the M. A. examination and not 57.7% as disclosed by the mark sheet filed by the petitioner. In response to the notice issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the petitioner to show cause why the order according approval should not be recalled, the petitioner filed a representation which was duly considered by the Vice-Chancellor. On a consideration of the relevant records maintained by the University and the representation of the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor recalled the approval granted by him on 20-10-1984.
(2.) Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a representation before the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The Chancellor has by the impugned order dated 17-12-1985 rejected the representation of the petitioner. He has observed that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as a lecturer in view of the marks actually obtained by her at the said examination. He has further observed that the Vice-Chancellor was competent in law to recall his approval as the same had been granted as a result of misrepresentation of facts.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no misrepresentation of facts in so far as the petitioner was concerned. The petitioner had filed the mark sheet which was issued to her and if there was any mistake in the mark sheet, the petitioner could not be said to have misrepresented the facts before the Vice-Chancellor. Learned counsel submitted that the Vice-Chancellor, had, therefore, no power to revoke the approval. The Chancellor has committed an error in not setting aside the Vice-Chancellor's order on this ground.;