JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - Rama Shanker Pandey, Vijay Pratap Singh, Surendra Pratap Singh and Ram Kripai petitioners were appointed as teachers in Raja Harpai' Singh inter College, Singra Mau, district Jaunpur. According is the respondents, these appointments were by promotion. The petitioners do not submit to this position, but that is of no consequence Later by an order dated 17-10-1974 the respondent no. 1 cancelled the approval that had been accorded by him earlier through his order dated 13-2-1974. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 17.10.1974 by writ petition no. 8149 of 1974 and the main ground of attack is that the order having-been passed without affording any opportunity to show cause is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 2. Dudh Nath Singh and Kranti Pratap Singh petitioners were working as teachers in L.T. grade in Jai Hind Inter College, Teji Bazar, Jaunpur. The Committee of Management of that institution created two posts in the lecturer grade and appointed the petitioners in that grade. The appointment of Dudh Nath Singh, petitioner no. 1, was approved by the District inspector of Schools through his order dated 19-12-1974 and the appointment of Kranti Pratap Singh, petitioner no. 2, was approved by the order dated 2-3-1974. By a subsequent order dated 15-10-1974 the District Inspector. of Schools respondent no. (1) cancelled the aforesaid approval Dudh Nath Singh ana Kranti Pratap Singh have, therefore, filed Writ Petition No 8169 of 1974 praying for quashing the order dated 15-10 1974. The main ground of attack by them also is that the order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is bad in law. 3. So far as Writ Petition No. 8149 of 1974 is concerned, the.allegation that the impugned order was passed.without affording any opportunity to show cause, is contained in paragraph 25 of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed 00 behalf of the respondents it has not been controverted. It therefore, be accepted that the District Inspector of Schools reviewed the earlier order dated 13-2-1974 without affording any opportunity to show cause 4. In the case Radhey Shyam and others v. The District Inspector of School, Jaunpur (1978 (4) A.L.R. 14). In the counter-affidavit filed 00 behalf of the respondents it has not been controverted. It therefore, be accepted that the District Inspector of Schools reviewed the earlier order dated 13-2-1974 without affording any opportunity to show cause 4. In the case Radhey Shyam and others v. The District Inspector of School, Jaunpur (1978 (4) A.L.R. 14). it has been held that the District Inspector of Schools having once approved the appointment of a teacher cannot review the order of approval, except on grounds of mistake or fraud and even in that case the order cannot be reviewed, without affording an opportunity to show cause being given to the teacher concerned. 5. A already stated above, the allegations that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity to show cause to the petitioners has not been controverted by any of the respondents in Writ Petition no 8149 of 1974 and, consequently, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order is bad in law. 6. As for (he writ petition No. 8169 of 1974, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The result is that the allegations contained in the petition, that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners is show cause, remains wholly uncontroyerted. For the reasons already stated, therefore, that order can also not be maintained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that we may also quash the order dated 27-7-1974 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, respondent no. 2. It was alleged by him that it was in pursuance of that order that the District Inspector of Schools passed the orders impugned in the two writ petitions. Since, however, the impugned orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools do not make any reference to the order of the Deputy Director of Education, it would not be proper on our part to presume that the impugned orders were passed by the District Inspector of Schools in consequence of the orders issued by the Deputy Director of Education. We have, therefore, examined the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools, without taking into account the order dated 27-10-1974 issued by the Deputy Director of Education. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to make any comment on the validity or otherwise of the order of the Deputy Director of Education. 8. We have, therefore, examined the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools, without taking into account the order dated 27-10-1974 issued by the Deputy Director of Education. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to make any comment on the validity or otherwise of the order of the Deputy Director of Education. 8. The Learned Standing Counsel urged that while allowing these wot petitions we may observe that it will be open to the District Inspector of Schools, respondent no. 1, to fresh orders giving an opportunity to the petitioners. We have, however, already said earlier that the District Inspector of Schools cannot review his order except when it is pas ed in consequence of some mistake or fraud. We have also said earlier that eve in that case, the District Inspector of Schools cannot review his order without giving an opportunity to show cause. 9. Both these writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. .The order dated 17-10-1974 (Annexure) (9) to the writ petition No. 81 49 of 1974) and the order dated 15-10-1974 (Annexure) ,`12' to the writ petition No. 8169 of 1974) are hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that in case the District Inspector of Schools feel that the orders passed by him, approving the appointments of the petitioners, were the consequence of any mistake or fraud, he can pass fresh orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations contained in this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.