JUDGMENT K. N. Singh, J. 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 appointment. According to the petitioner he joined as Principal on 8-6-1974 and since then he has been functioning as such. It appears that there is dispute amongst the office bearers of the College and two rival committees of management have come into existence. Each of them claim to have been validly constituted. One of such committee is headed by Maya Ram Rai as Manager while the other rival committee is headed by Mohar Rai as Manager. The petitioner had been selected and appointed by the committee headed by Maya Ram Rai. The oommittee headed by Mohar Rai made a complaint to the Deputy Director of Education challenging the validity of the selection and appointment of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education thereupon issued the order dated 20-6-1974 informing the petitioner that the approval dated 25-5-1974 shall remain stayed till further orders. Aggrieved the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 20-6-1974. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the Deputy Director of Education accorded approval under Section 16-F of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, he became functus officio. Latter on he was not entitled to reopen the question or to pass any interim order suspending the operation of the order granting approval. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the Deputy Director of Education accorded approval under Section 16-F of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, he became functus officio. Latter on he was not entitled to reopen the question or to pass any interim order suspending the operation of the order granting approval. Section 16-F lays down procedure for selection and appointment of a teacher and principal. Section 16-F (2) lays down that a Principal of a College shall be appointed only after approval is granted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is open to the Deputy Director of Education to disapprove the proposal submitted by the management. In case the Deputy Director refuses to accord approval, it is open to the management to make representation to the Director of Education. There is, however, no provision conferring power on the Deputy Director of Education to reopen the question of grant of approval on a complaint made by any rival committee of management or any other person. Neither the Act nor the Regulations confer any such power on the Deputy Director of Education. Once the approval is granted by the Deputy Director of Education, it becomes final and normally the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to withdraw approval or to consider the question again. 4. 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. 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. The question then arises as to whether the Deputy Director of Education has authority in law to issue interim order staying operation of the order of approval granted by him earlier. Neither the Act nor the Regulations confer any such power on the Deputy Director of Education. As already noted normally the Deputy Director of Education has no power to review his order granting approval but it is only in exceptional cases that he is entitled to reopen the question as discussed above. In such a situation it is not permissible to the Deputy Director of Education to issue any interim order pending enquiry. In the instant case the approval was granted in May, 1974 and the petitioner had taken over as Principal. The Deputy Director had no authority to suspend the operation to approval in June, 1974. The respondents have failed to show any provision conferring power on the Deputy Director to issue interim orders pending enquiry. In the circumstances I hold that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to direct suspension of his order granting approval. 5. The Deputy Director had no authority to suspend the operation to approval in June, 1974. The respondents have failed to show any provision conferring power on the Deputy Director to issue interim orders pending enquiry. In the circumstances I hold that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to direct suspension of his order granting approval. 5. Learned counsel for the committee of management headed by Mohar Rai has strenuously urged that Maya Ram Rai is not the validly elected Manager. It is further urged that no selection was held and the petitioner was never selected, therefore his selection and appointment was invalid. He further asserted that the order of approval was obtained by Maya Ram Rai on misrepresentation of facts. Maya Ram Rai has filed his own affidavit, he has asserted that he was the validly elected Manager of the College and that a regular selection took place in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulation framed thereunder and the petitioner was duly selected by the selection committee constituted in accordance with the Act. There is thus serious dispute between the two rival managing committees. This involves investigation of facts. The matter is pending before the Deputy Director of Education. it is for him to decide these matters and it is not proper for this Court to adjudicate upon these matters. I hope the Deputy Director of Education will afford opportunity to the parties before passing any order in the matter. 6. In the result I partly allow the petition and quash the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 20-6-1974 to the extent it purports to suspend his earlier order dated 25-5-1974. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.