JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - On a motion made by the Committee of Management Adarsh Inter College. Manikpur though its Authorised Controller, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, this court issued rule nisi requiring the Director of Education, U.P. respondent 1 and the District Inspector of Schools, Banda, respondent 2 to show cause why a writ of certiorari may not be issued quashing the orders of respondent 2 dated June 5, 1979 and June 29, 1979. They were further required to show cause why a writ of mandamus may not be issued commanding the said respondents not to compel the petitioner to pay the salary of respondent 3. 2. The facts about which there is no controversy between the parties are that the last Committee of Management of the petitioner was elected on September 13, 1970 and in accordance with the Scheme of Administration the term of the said committee ended by tax of time on September 13, 1973. The post of a teacher was vacant at that time and a Selection Committee which had been constituted in accordance with the regulations contained in Chapter II of the regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act met on September 15, 1973 and recommended respondent 3 to fill the said vacancy. Recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Banda, here after referred to as the DIOS, by his order dated October 18,1973. On a complaint about alleged insubordination, negligence of duty and misconduct respondent 2 was suspended by the said Managing Committee on September 16, 1976. The DIOS approved the order of suspension by his order dated October 12, 1976. In the meanwhile a charge-sheet was submitted; against respondent 3 by the same Committee of Manage mention September 30, 1976 to which a reply was submitted by the said respondent on January 4, 1977. In bis reply to the charge-sheet respondent 3 stated that the Managing Committee which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had become functus officio and it was not competent to take any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was thereafter appointed and he found that all the charges framed against respondent 3 had been duly reviewed. The Committee of Management which had been elected in the year 1970 passed a resolution dated April 5, 1977 recommending the termination of respondent's 3 services. An Enquiry Officer was thereafter appointed and he found that all the charges framed against respondent 3 had been duly reviewed. The Committee of Management which had been elected in the year 1970 passed a resolution dated April 5, 1977 recommending the termination of respondent's 3 services. There was some dispute amongst the members of the general body of the petitioner institution and three rival committees of the Management had started laying claims to act as Committee of Management and on 4-1 -1977 the State Government appointed an Authorised Controller to run the affairs of the institution under Section 16 D (4) of the Act. The DIOS by his order dated 15th November. 1977 refused to approve the resolution of the Committee of Management on 5-4 1977 on the ground that the Committee which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had become functus officio and was not competent to take any disciplinary proceedings against respondent 3. The Authorised Controller felt himself in a quandary on receiving the letter of the DIOS dated 15th November, 1977 and on November 26, 1977 he sent a letter to the DIOS enquiring about the position of Respondent 3 who had been appointed by the same Committee of Management after the expiry of its term. The D1 OS replied to the said letter by hi9 communication dated December 1, 1977 and in the said communication he only referred to his earlier letter dated November 15, 1977 and refrained from giving any answer to the query which had been put to him by the Authorised Controller in his letter dated November 26, 1977. 3. It is also not in controversy that the Authorised Controller after receiving tie communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated December 1, 1977 passed an order dated December 3, 1977. By means of the said order the Authorised Controller reinstated Respondent 3 and asked him to reply to the charges which were contained in the charge sheet dated September 30, 1976. In response to the said order of the Authorised Controller Respondent 3 submitted an explanation on December 26, 1977. After perusal of the explanation submitted by Respondent 3 the Authorised Controller addressed a communication to him asking him as to why his appointment may not be treated as invalid from its very inception. On the request made by Respondent 3 the Authorised Controller give a personal hearing to the Respondent 3. After perusal of the explanation submitted by Respondent 3 the Authorised Controller addressed a communication to him asking him as to why his appointment may not be treated as invalid from its very inception. On the request made by Respondent 3 the Authorised Controller give a personal hearing to the Respondent 3. (n the meanwhile the officer who had been functioning as Authorised Controller was transferred and one Sri P.D Sudhakar, 1/3 succeeded him as Authorised Controller of the petitioner, Sri Sudhakar gave a second show cause notice to Respondent 3 and asked him to reply to the charges contained in the charge-sheet dated September 30, 1976 within 15 days. The show cause notice was again replied to by Respondent 3 on December 6, 1 -78. In his reply Respondent 3 again maintained the position that the Committee of Management which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had no locus standi to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him after September 13, 1973. On receipt of this reply Sri Sudhakar wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools seeking his permission to recall the appointment of Respondent 3 which had also been made through a Selection Committee after the expiry of term of the Managing Committee elected in 1970. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated May 2, 1979 informed Sri Sudhakar, the then Authorised Controller of the petitioner, that the appointment of Respondent 3 was invalid and illegal and as such the question of approving the termination of his services did not arise. On receipt of the letter of the DIOS dated May 2, 1979 the Authorised Controller informed respondent 3 that his appointment has been held to be invalid and illegal by the DIOS by his order dated 2-5-1979 and as such he shall not be deemed to be in the service of the petitioner institution. On June 5, 1979 the DIOS informed the Authorised Controller that the termination of the service of respondent 3 was illegal and invalid and as such could not be approved. This time the DIOS took the view that the service of respondent 3 could only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of law contained in Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the relevant Regulations. This time the DIOS took the view that the service of respondent 3 could only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of law contained in Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the relevant Regulations. On receiving the letter of the DIOS the Authorised Controller informed him that all relevant proceedings under Section 16-G and the Connected Regulations had been duly complied with and all the relevant papers had been submitted to him which he had passed the order dated May 2 1979. The DIOS by letter dated 29th June, 1979 which was received in the office of the petitioner on July 9, 1979 informed the petitioner that the order dated 2 5-1979 is being recalled on the instructions of the Director of Education contained in his letter dated June 2/3, 1979. 4. The petitioner has alleged that the salary bill of the staff of the petitioner was returned by the DIOS by his letter dated July 2, 1979 on the ground that it did not contain the name of respondent 3. 5. The writ petition has been opposed by respondent 3 who has filed bis own counter-affidavit. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the said counter-affidavits facts disclosed above have not been specifically controverted. 6. It is common ground between the parties that the term of the Committee of Management which was elected on 13-9-1979 expired three years after the construction i.e. on September 13, 1973 and after the said date the Committee of Management elected in 1970 became functus officio. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to Regulations 3 and 5 of Chapter JI of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulation 3 reads as under : - "The first selection committee including its Chairman shall be appointed by the existing Managing body of the Institution as soon as practicable after these regulations are notified. Within a month of its constitution under Section 16-A of the Act the Committee of Management shall appoint a fresh selection committee including its Chairman. Whereupon the term of the first selection committee shall expire and members thereof shall cease to function. Within a month of its constitution under Section 16-A of the Act the Committee of Management shall appoint a fresh selection committee including its Chairman. Whereupon the term of the first selection committee shall expire and members thereof shall cease to function. Regulation 5 of Chapter II may now be quoted : - "The members of the second and subsequent selection committee shall hold office for three years or till the expiry of the term. The Committee of Management which has appointed them, whichever is earlier. The vacancy occurring in the selection committee shall promptly be filled by the committee of management." 7. It is conceded at thenar, as it should have been that no teacher can be appointed in an institution governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Regulations 3 and 5 of Chapter II extracted above go to show that the term of the first selection committee constituted on the coming into force of the Regulations is of a short duration. The Committee of Management has an obligation to appoint the second Selection Committee on the expiry of one month of its constitution under Section 16-A of the Act. The life of the second and subsequent selection committees is three years or till the life of the Committee of Management which appointed it whichever date is earlier. In other words the term of the selection committee constituted by the Committee of Management cannot enure beyond the term of the Committee of Management which appointed it. It is not disputed that the Selection Committee which selected respondent 3 for appointment had itself been appointed by the Committee of Management which was elected on September 13, 1970. The life of the Section Committee was, therefore, coterminous with the life of the Committee of Management. The moment the Committee of Management became functus officio the life of the Selection Committee itself came to an end. The date on which respondent 3 was recommended for appointment is 15-9-1973 and on that date the Selection Committee itself had no lucus standi. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents urged that the initial appointment of the Selection Committee was valid and its tenure was for a period of three years which had not expired on 15-9-1973. The date on which respondent 3 was recommended for appointment is 15-9-1973 and on that date the Selection Committee itself had no lucus standi. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents urged that the initial appointment of the Selection Committee was valid and its tenure was for a period of three years which had not expired on 15-9-1973. We are unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that Regulation 5 is unequivocal in its import and it lays down that the term of the Selection Committee appointed by the Committee of Management shall be three years or till the date of expiry of the term of the Committee of Management whichever date is earlier. The interpretation which the learned counsel for the respondents would like us to adopt would be in plain conflict with the express terms of the language employed in Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act. 9. In this state of law there is no escape from the conclusion that the appointment of respondent 3 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee made on September 15, 1973 was invalid from its inception and respondent 3 acquired no right to hold the post or to claim the benefit of Section 16 G of the Act. In the view which we are taking we are supported by the case reported in State of Punjab v. Jagdish Singh, [AIR 1964 SC 851. In that case Madholkar, J. speaking on behalf of the Court-observed : - In our opinion where a Government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, then an authority under the Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which it was not entitled to give, be will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status." 10. The position taken by the DIOS in his letter dated 2-5-1979 was, therefore, correct and he committed a manifest error of law in going back on the said stand by his impugned order dated June 5, 1979. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next invited our attention to the letter of the Director of Education dated June 2/3, 1979 addressed to the DIOS, Banda. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next invited our attention to the letter of the Director of Education dated June 2/3, 1979 addressed to the DIOS, Banda. In his letter the Director of Education had specifically stated that the DIOS bad erred in holding that the appointment of respondent 3 was invalid appointment by bis letter dated 2nd May, 1979. He contended that the letter dated 5. 6 .1979 had been issued by the DIOS without applying his mind at the behest of the Director of Education. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully borne out by the copies of the letters attached with the petition. The letter of the DIO dated June 29, 1979 specifically states that the order dated May 2, 1979 was being recalled at the instance of the Director of Education. The very language employed in the letter of the DIOS dated June 29, 1979 supports this conclusion. 12. On behalf of the petitioner it is next pressed that the DIOS had no jurisdiction to review his order dated May 2, 1979. It is true that no powers of review have been vested in the DIOS and that he could only recall his order dated May 2, 1979 if it could be shown that the said order have been obtained by means of fraud or misrepresentation. In the orders which are impugned in this writ petition no such ground has been stated. Learned counsel for the respondents have also not been -able to show to us that the order dated May 2, 1979 was passed on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. 13. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the order of the DIOS dated June 5,1979 and June 29, 1979 suffer from errors of law manifest on the face of record and this writ petition deserves to succeed. 14. The result is that this writ petition is allowed. The orders of the DIOS dated 5-6-1979 are hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is also issued against respondents 1 and 2 not to compel the petitioner to include the name of respondents 3 in the salary bill The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.