JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The question of seniority between the petitioners and opposite party No. 3, who are members of the teaching staff of the same institution viz., Janta Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Purey Pandey, district Rae Bareli, is the subject-matter of dispute in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Committee of Management of the said institution passed a resolution on 23rd July, 1971 appointing the petitioners as Demonstrators in Chemistry and Physics respectively and the opposite party No. 3 as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade, and thereafter papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval in anticipation of which the Committee of Management allowed the petitioners to join the institution on 31st July, 1971, while the approval to the appointment of the petitioners and opposite party No. 3 was given on 3rd August, 1971, whereafter the appointment letters were given to the petitioners and opposite party No. 3 who joined the institution on 4th August, 1971. The opposite party No. 3 was appointed on one years probation, while the petitioners were appointed as temporary Demonstrators and teachers in the institution with a rider that their services will not be terminated. 3. Some five years thereafter on some letter of the Principal of the Institution the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 9th Nov., 1976, amended the approval order which was given by him in the year 1971 stating that the petitioners would be treated as having been placed on probation with effect from 31st July, 1971, i.e. three days before the date when the approval was accorded by him and at the same time ordered that they are being confirmed as Demonstrators in the institution. It seems that a few days before this order some representations were made by the petitioners and on the said representations the District Inspector of Schools ordered that as the approval was given on 3rd August, 1971 and the appointment letters were issued on 4th August, 1971, on which date the petitioners joined, the salary between the period 1st August, 1971 to 3rd August, 197l was payable by the management from its funds and not from the joint account and as salary for four days has already been paid from the joint account, the management will deposit the same in the joint account within a month, but the same will not affect their seniority and their appointments would be deemed to be made with- effect from 31st July, 1971. 4. Opposite party No. 3, who was not in picture till then, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools pointing out the irregularities in the appointment of the petitioners. The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 9th November, 1976, referred to above, ordered that the petitioners will be treated to join duty with effect from 4th August, 197l and the same will also be taken to be the date for purposes of appointment amongst the appointees of that date. After this order the petitioners made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools questioning the subsequent order passed by the District Inspector of Schools who after hearing the petitioners as well as the opposite party No. 3 passed an order on 17th August, 1977 holding that the petitioners should be deemed to have joined with effect from 4th August, 1971 and in accordance with the Regulations made under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, opposite party No. 3 was declared to be senior to the petitioners which is the subject-matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. The same view was finally upheld by the Inspector after hearing the parties, vide order dated 8-11-1977. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. C. Saxena, who submitted before us that the District Inspector of Schools after having passed an order of confirmation of the petitioners and thereafter placing them on one years probation had no power to recall back or modify or review the said order, as such the subsequent two orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools were without jurisdiction. 6. 6. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on Havaldar Singh v. U. P. Shiksha Nideshak VII Mandal, Gorakhpur (1976 All WC 123). In this case a single Judge of this Court observed: "It is always open to an administrative authority to reconsider or to review the 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 misrepresentation 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." In the said case it was also observed that once approval is granted by the District Inspector of Schools it becomes final and normally the Deputy Director of Education has got no power to withdraw or question the approval again. The said case lays down that once approval is given the same cannot be withdrawn or reviewed and it can only be reviewed in case there is an allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, meaning thereby that in case the order is challenged on ground of fraud and misrepresentation it becomes a nullity. This case does not support the case of the petitioners as the approval order was modified in their favour by the District Inspector of Schools after five years without there being any allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. 7. The District Inspector of Schools modified his earlier order by placing the petitioners on probation and that too with effect from the earlier date which order in view of the authority cited above by the learned counsel itself becomes without jurisdiction. 8. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel is a Division Bench case of this Court in Prabhu Narain Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi (1977 All LR 391). It was a case of termination of services of a teacher of an Intermediate College without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The said teacher was selected by the Committee of Management, but he started working without the receipt of the formal appointment letter. It was a case of termination of services of a teacher of an Intermediate College without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The said teacher was selected by the Committee of Management, but he started working without the receipt of the formal appointment letter. In that context the Division Bench held that "it is no doubt true that these Regulations contemplate a letter of appointment, but the mere fact that management withholds the letter of appointment, cannot result in an approved candidate being deprived of his right to be appointed as a teacher on account of the purposeful lapse on the part of the Management". Relying on another case in Janta Inter College Nagra v. District Inspector of Schools Balia (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 4497 of 1969, decided on November 26, 1971) it was held that "Regulation 16 prescribed for the performance of a mere ministerial act of issuing a letter of appointment and if a person has been selected by the appropriate Committee and his selection has been approved by the appropriate authority the Committee of Management is bound to appoint him and the Manager is bound to issue a letter of appointment for which the committee of management is bound to grant the office authorisation. Thus, even though the petitioner did not enjoy the status of a teacher up to the date when approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools that status was conferred on him as soon as approval was granted, notwithstanding the fact that management did not issue any letter of appointment. 9. In Prabhu Narain Singhs case (supra) the Division Bench distinguished the case of Arya Kanya Pathshala v. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri (1971 All LJ 983) as the facts of the said case were not applicable to the case before the Division Bench. Prabhu Narain Singhs (supra) does not support the petitioners inasmuch as it only goes to the extent of holding that even though a person is allowed to start the teaching work before approval to his appointment is given, he will get status of a teacher when his appointment is formally approved by the District Inspector of Schools notwithstanding the absence of a formal letter of appointment by the management. 10. It will be relevant to make reference to Section 16-F and Regulation 16 of Chap. II framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 10. It will be relevant to make reference to Section 16-F and Regulation 16 of Chap. II framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The relevant part of Section 16-F of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act reads as under :- ".............. No person shall be appointed as a principal, Head Master or Teacher of any recognised institution unless he - (1) possesses the prescribed qualification and has been exempted under sub-sec. (1) of. Section 16-F. (2) has been recommended by the selection committee constituted under sub-sec. (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section, and approved in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and in case of a teacher by the Inspector.........." Regulation 16 of Chap. II as it then stood runs: - "16. Order of appointment. Within two weeks of receipt of approval of the selected candidate for appointment as Principal, Head Master or Teacher, the Manager shall, on authorisation under a resolution of the Committee of Management, issue an order of appointment to the candidate mentioning therein among other particulars, the salary, scale of pay and period of probation and with instructions to join duty within a fortnight of the receipt of the appointment order. The appointment of a candidate failing to report for duty within this period will be liable to termination. A copy of the order of appointment shall be sent to the authority prescribed in Section 16-F (2), read with Section 16-G (5) for information and record to his office." 11. The provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act make it clear that no person can be appointed as Principal or teacher of the institution unless he is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be. Without approval the person does not get the status of a teacher, even though the approval is to be followed by a formal letter, but in the absence of formal letter the person gets the status of a teacher after approval to the appointment is given by the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment of a person as a teacher becomes effective only from the date approval is given and even if a person is allowed to work before that the same has no recognition under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 12. The appointment of a person as a teacher becomes effective only from the date approval is given and even if a person is allowed to work before that the same has no recognition under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 12. In Arya Kanya Pathshala (supra) it was held that the approval of the District Inspector of Schools must be accorded before appointment is made and the appointment without approval would be nullity and the ratio of the said case is that a person gets status of a teacher when the requisite formality is completed. 13. Looking into the Scheme and the relevant provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder it is clear that the management has got no right to appoint a person awaiting approval of the District Inspector of Schools or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, but the said appointment will become legal and regular only from the date the approval is accorded by the competent authority and the prior working of the person will not confer any benefit qua the appointees. 14. As we have observed above that so far as earlier order of the District Inspector of Schools, is concerned by which he amended the approval order it was without jurisdiction and the petitioners cannot be heard complaining that the subsequent review was without jurisdiction and the District Inspector of Schools has no power to recall back his order which was passed in favour of the petitioners. In this connection it will be relevant to make reference to the case Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan ( (1979) 1 SCC 321 ). It was a case under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, and against the order of vesting no appeal or revision was filed. Subsequently the party concerned challenged the jurisdiction of the competent authority who passed an order in their favour against which the opposite party filed an application for restoration. The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the petitioners who themselves invoked the review jurisdiction disentitled them from issuing a writ of certiorari inasmuch as they allowed the vesting order to become final and thereafter challenged the subsequent review by which the earlier review order was questioned. The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the petitioners who themselves invoked the review jurisdiction disentitled them from issuing a writ of certiorari inasmuch as they allowed the vesting order to become final and thereafter challenged the subsequent review by which the earlier review order was questioned. In this context the Supreme Court observed: - "So when the writ petitioners had themselves unlawfully invoked the review jurisdiction of the competent officer, which did not exist, to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the present appellant, by their application dated March 12, 1958, they could not be heard to say when the Department invoked the self same jurisdiction oh two important grounds (to which reference has been made earlier), that the review orders of the competent officer dated July 10, 1958 and Sept. 8, 1958 were void for want of jurisdiction and must be set aside for that reason. The conduct of the writ petitioners was therefore such as to disentitle them to certiorari, and the High Court erred in ignoring that important aspect of the matter even though it was sufficient for the dismissal of the writ petition." Thus it is clear that after passing the approval order and confirming the petitioners, the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to modify or review the order of approval to the detriment of the others. Such an illegal order can be rectified by the authority concerned i.e. the District Inspector of Schools and in case such a jurisdiction is exercised, it cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools exceeded his jurisdiction in reviewing or recalling back his earlier order. Thus the appointment of the petitioners could not date back before 4th August, 1971 when the approval was accorded and the subsequent two orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools were without jurisdiction which were later on rectified and the mistake was corrected by him. The subsequent orders which are under challenge cannot be questioned by the petitioners as the District Inspector of Schools simply restored back the legal position. 15. The Writ Petition has got no merit and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.