Judgment :- 1. The writ applicant was appointed as a Headmaster of the Krishnavilasam Upper Primary School, Kappad, Cannanore District on 141959. 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 81960 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 T 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: "An examination of the provisions of the Act and Rules show, that the Director of Public Instruction is not vested with powers of revision and review in respect of decisions taken by him on matters coming under Chapter XIV A which deals with the conditions of service of aided school teachers. Hence the review order passed referred to by the Hon'ble High Court was without jurisdiction. Hence it has no authority or validity. In view of the fact that the Director of Public Instruction cannot entertain review petition on his own orders and pass subsequent orders, the orders issued on the review petition will automatically lapse. Hence the orders passed earlier by the Director of Public Instruction on 30 81959 will stand." 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. Hence the orders passed earlier by the Director of Public Instruction on 30 81959 will stand." 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: " ... when there has been some procedural irregularity in the proceedings leading up to a judgment or order, which is so serious that the judgment or order in question ought to be treated as a nullity, then the court will also set it aside. There is no decisive test for ascertaining which irregularities render a judgment void, as opposed to those which render it voidable, but one test which may be applied is whether the irregularity has caused a failure of natural justice.' It is the case of the petitioner that the order Ext. P-2 dated 30-8-1960 had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in that the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Director of Public Instruction had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and pass the order Ext. P-2. If these contentions are correct, a review application may be maintainable and this is supported by the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in S. Barrow v. State of U. P. and another reported in 1958 All. 154 and Debi Prasad and others v. Khelawan and others reported in 1957 All. 67. 4. In the light of the above, I set aside Ext. P-6 order and direct the Director of Public Instruction to take back the review application moved by the petitioner praying that the order passed in appeal Ext. P-2 dated 30 81960 be set aside and deal with it afresh in the light of what is stated in this judgment and after determining whether the circumstances that are necessary to exercise the power of review exist. Till the application is dealt with and disposed of, the status quo as on today will be maintained. P-2 dated 30 81960 be set aside and deal with it afresh in the light of what is stated in this judgment and after determining whether the circumstances that are necessary to exercise the power of review exist. Till the application is dealt with and disposed of, the status quo as on today will be maintained. It is necessary also that the matter should be dealt with and disposed of as early as possible, in any event within three months from today. I so direct. 5. This writ application is disposed of on the above terms. There will be direction regarding costs. Allowed.