HAVALDAR SINGH Vs. U P SHIKSHA NIDESHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, dated 20-6-1974, whereby he suspended the operation of his order, dated 25-5-1974 according approval for the petitioner's appointment as principal of Shikshak Uchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bheemvar, District Azamgarh.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Sri Subhash Intermediate College, Karhiya, District Azamgarh. While serving there as teacher he applied for the post of Principal, Shikshak Uchhttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bheemvar, (hereinafter referred to as the College) in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the management of the Shikshak Uchhttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, iniviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Principal. THE petitioner appeared before a Selection Committee for interview along with other candidates. He was selected. THE management submitted the recommendations of the Selection Committee to the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, for according approval to the petitioner's selection and appointment. THE Deputy Director of Education by his letter dated 25-5-1974 accorded approval to the petitioner's appointement.

(3.) THOUGH normally it is not open to the Deputy Director of Education to review his order granting approval for the appointment of Principal but there is one exception to this rule which is well recognised in law. It is well settled that an order obtained by fraud is a nullity. It is always open to an administrative authority to reconsider or to review its order if it is satisfied that the order was obtained by fraud. Even in the absence of any statutory provision the power of review can be exercised by the administrative authority in case of fraud or mis-representation, but the fraud or misrepresentation must be in relation to matters vitally connected with the exercise of power or which may have affected the initial jurisdiction of the authority. Take an illustration where the selection committee forwards the name of a person who is not qualified under the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder for appointment to the office of principal and the selection committee makes a misrepresentation to the Deputy Director of Education to the effect that the person concerned was fully qualified in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. In such a case if the Deputy Director comes to know of the correct facts that the person in whose favour he accorded approval did not possess the necessary qualifications as prescribed under the Act and the Regulations, it would be open to him to reopen the matter. Thus where the Deputy Director of Education is satisfied that an order of approval was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, it is open to him to reopen the matter to hold enquiry and set aside the order granting approval.