KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ applicant was appointed as a Headmaster of the Krishnavilasam Upper Primary School, Kappad, Cannanore District on 1-4-1959. The 2nd respondent to this writ application appealed from the order appointing the petitioner as a Headmaster to the Director of Public Instruction. The Director, by Ext. P-2 order, dated 30-8-1960 allowed the appeal of the 2nd respondent and set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster. The petitioner then moved a review application to review the order passed in appeal, Ext. P-2. This review application was allowed by Ext. P-4 order. The 2nd respondent then moved this Court in O. P. No. 529 of 1963 and I by my judgment Ext. P-5, set aside the order Ext. P-4 because Ext. P-4 order was passed without hearing the 2nd respondent and directed the Director of Public Instruction to deal with the review application afresh. I also directed that he should consider the question as to whether he has power to review his own order. The Director of Public Instruction has now passed an order Ext. P-6. Therein he has stated that he has no power of review and therefore he rejected the application for review moved by the petitioner. It is the order Ext. P-6 that is challenged in this writ application.

(2.) The relevant part of that order is in these terms:-

(3.) Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has urged that there are circumstances under which an authority may review his own decision though there is no statutory provision for review. Such instances, it is said, will arise when the authority in the first instance had acted without jurisdiction or had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. My attention was invited to a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 22 in Para.1665 at page 785 which reads thus: