JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of management of Subhadra Kumar Intermediate College, Basni (hereinafter called as the petitioner) praying that the order dated 19-5-80, passed by the Director of Education (respondent no. 1) and the order dated 16th June, 1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (respondent no. 3) be quashed. 2. The facts giving rise to this case, which require being mentioned in some detail, are as follows: Sri Lalji Misra respondent no. 4 was a teacher in L.T. Grade in Subhadra Kumar Intermediate College, Bansi (hereinafter called the 'institution'). The post of Lecturer in Hindi Department of the Institution fell vacant on account of the lecturer having been promoted as Principal. The respondent no. 4, it is alleged, was promoted to the post of the lecture and Sri Jagannath Singh, who was then acting as Manager of the Institution, sent a letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 1st December, 1977 apprising him of that fact and seeking his approval. The District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 26th December, 1977 (Annexure II to the counter affidavit of S.D. Misra) accorded the approval asked for and the respondent 4 started functioning as lecturer since 1st January, 1978. He was also paid salary for that post for the months of January and February, 1978. On 14th March, 1978, however Sri Vishwanath Singh, the manager of the institution wrote a letter (Annexure II to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 4) to the respondent no. 4 informing him that the Committee of management had passed a resolution declaring that his promotion was illegal and unlawful. Sri Vishwanath Singh also sent a letter to the same effect on the same date to the District Inspector of Schools (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit of S.D. Misra) enclosing therewith a copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management did not ask for a review of the order dated 26th December, 1977 by which the District Inspector of Schools against the letter dated 14th march, 1978 (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 4), that was addressed to him by the Manager of the Institution. 4), that was addressed to him by the Manager of the Institution. By his order dated 24th April, 1978 (Annexure IV to the counter-affidavit of S. D. Misra) the District Inspector of Schools wrote to t be Committee of the Management that the Committee could convene a fresh meeting for passing the necessary resolution regarding the promotion of the respondent no. 4, if it had not been lawfully passed till then, and that the respondent no. 4 should be paid his salary for the month of March, 1978 under intimation to him. The Committee of Management then sent another letter dated 28th April, 1978 (Annexure V to the counter-affidavit of S. D. Misra) to the District Inspector of Schools reiterating that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 on the past of lecturer Hindi Department was illegal and requesting that the District Inspector of Schools may cancel his approval. On 15th May. 1978 the District Inspector of Schools passed a detailed order (Annexure IV to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 4), wherein he considered the objections raised by the Committee of Management against the promotion of the respondent no. 4 to the post of Lecturer Hindi Department and rejected the request of the Committee of Management to withdraw that approval. It was further directed by the District Inspector of Schools in that letter that the salary bill of respondent no. 4 for the post of Lecturer Hindi Department be prepared and sent to his office. It transpires that on receipt of the aforesaid order the Committee of Management sent another letter dated 1st June, 1978 to the District Inspector of Schools for obtaining his orders for the matter being referred to the Deputy Director of Education. In reply to this letter the Committee of Management was informed by the District Inspector of Schools through letter dated 24-4-1979. (Annexure V to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 4) that no formal orders from the District Inspector of Schools were needed referring the matter to the Director of Education and that the management may send the salary bill of the respondent no. 4 for the post of Lecturer Hindi Department. Since, respondent no. (Annexure V to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 4) that no formal orders from the District Inspector of Schools were needed referring the matter to the Director of Education and that the management may send the salary bill of the respondent no. 4 for the post of Lecturer Hindi Department. Since, respondent no. 4 was not paid his salary despite it, he sent a complaint to the Education Minister which in due course reached the Deputy Director of Education and the latter thereupon invited comments from the Committee of the Management as well as from the District Inspector of Schools. In the comments submitted by the Committee of Management, it reiterated the same objection that had been raised by it in the letters sent to the District Inspector of Schools earlier. The Deputy Director of Education passed a detailed order on or about 22nd November, 1979 (vide Annexure VI to the counter-affidavit of S. D. Misra and respondent no. 4) affirming the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 26th December, 1977 by which the D.strict Inspector of Schools had approved the appointment of the respondent no. 4. Prior to it, however, the Committee of Management had sent a representation on 15th April, 1979 to the Director of Education (Anrexure VII to the counter-affidavit of S. D. Misra) that since the district Inspector of Schools was pressing for the payment of the salary to the respondent no. 4, orders may be issued to the District Inspector of Schools that, till the matter regarding promotion of respondent no. 4 was decided by the Directorate, the respondent no. 4 be paid the salary of the teacher L.T. grade only and not of the post of Lecturer. On this representation the Director of Education passed an order on 29th January, 1980 (vide Annexure VIII to the counter-affidavit of S. D Misra) whereby it was held that the promotion of the respondent no. 4 to the post of Lecturer was not valid. By the same order the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to exercise his power of review and to withdraw the approval given by him on 26th December, 1977. In compliance with this direction the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 23rd April, 1980 (Annexure VIH to the writ petition) withdrawing the approval accorded by him on 26th December, 1977. In compliance with this direction the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 23rd April, 1980 (Annexure VIH to the writ petition) withdrawing the approval accorded by him on 26th December, 1977. It, however, transpires that before this order could be passed the respondent no. 4 made a verbal representation to the Director of Education and also pursuaded Sri S. K. Mukhopachyay M. L. C. to make a representation on his behalf. Sri Mukhopadhyay sent a letter (Annexure VIII to the counter affidavit of S. D Misra), inter alia, stating that the Director had passed the order dated 29th January, 1980, without hearing respondent no. 4 and that it should be withdrawn. Thereafter on 19th May, 1980 the Director of Education passed an order withdrawing his earlier order dated 29th January, 1980 (See annexure IX to the counter-affidavit of Lalji Misra). The District Inspector of Schools having been informed of this order he in his turn passed an order on 17th June, 1980. (Anuexure IV to the writ petition) withdrawing his order dated 23rd April, 1980, thereby revising his original order dated 26th December, 1977. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 19th May, 1980 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 17th June, 1980 the Committee of Management of the Institution has filed the present writ petition. 3. The petition has been opposed on behalf of all the respondents. Sri Sheshdhar Misra, Assistant Supervisor of the office of the District Inspector of Schools has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents no. I to 3 while Lalji Misra, respondent no. a, has filed a counter-affidavit on his behalf. Very briefly stated, the stand taken by the respondents is that since the order dated 29th January, 1980 and the order dated 23rd April, 1980 were passed by the Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools respectively adversely affecting the respondent no 4 without affording him any opportunity of being heard, the aforesaid orders were validly withdrawn by the two authorities. The respondent no. The respondent no. 4 has further taken the stand that the Director of Education did not have the jurisdiction to passed the order dated 29th January, 1980 which was invalid and since, the order dated 23rd April, 1980 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Director of Education, it was also invalid. According to respondent no. 4 neither the order of the Director of Education dated 29th January, 1980 nor the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 23rd April, 1980 could carry any effect whatsoever. It is further averred that by passing the order dated 19th May, 1980 and the order dated 17th June, 1980 passed by the Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools respectively, the mistake committed by them in passing the orders dated 29th January, 1980 and 23rd April, 1980 has been rectified, and, hence no interference whatsoever is called for in the instant case. 4. Learned counsel tor the petitioner contended that Director of Education having once passed the order dated 29th January, 1980 and the District Inspector of Schools having passed the order dated 23 April, 1980, could net withdraw those orders, in any case not without hearing the petition. Learned counsel stressed that it is apparent from the letter dated 7th April, 1980 of Sri S. K. Mukhopadhyay (Annexure IX of the counter affidavit of S. D. Misra) that order dated 19th May, 1970 withdrawing the order dated 29th January, 1980 was passed by the Director of Education under political pressure. Learned counsel added that, but for the order passed by the Director of Education on 19th May, 1980 the District Inspector of Schools would not have passed the order dated 17th June, 1980 thereby withdrawing the order dated 23rd April, 1980 Learned counsel stressed that both the orders i.e., order dated 19th May, 1980 passed by the Director of Education and the order dated 17th May, 1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools therefore, deserve to be quashed. 5. We have given our careful thought to the contention raised but regret our inability to accept the same. 5. We have given our careful thought to the contention raised but regret our inability to accept the same. As would appear from the sequence of events stated earlier, the promotion of respondent no 4 to the post of Lecturer Hindi Department was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 26th December, 1977 in exercise of his statutory power under Regulation 6 (vi) of Chapter If of the Regulations framed under the Act. If the Committee of Management felt aggrieved, it was open to the Committee of Management to file a representation against that decision to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Regulation 6 (vii). Chapter II of the Regulation. Subject to the decision of the Director of Education the order of the District Inspector of Schools is final. It is not known that the Committee of Management filed any such representation. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 26th December, 1977, therefore, became final It could not be shown that any provision in the act or the regulation confer any power on Director of Education to interfere with the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. It is, therefore, obvious that the order dated 29th January, 1980 was itself without jurisdiction. 6. As for the order dated 23rd April, 1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, it stands on no better footing. In the first instance that order was consequent upon the order dated 29th January, 1980 passed by the Director or Education. Once we accept that the order passed by the Director of Education is a nullity being without jurisdiction, the order dated 23rd April, 1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools must also fall with it. Further, it is conceded in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 that the order dated 23rd April, 1980 was passed without affording any show cause opportunity to the respondent no. 4. If the District Inspector of Schools at all intended to withdraw the approval accorded by him earlier in four of respondent no. 4 on 26th December, 1977, it was imperative for him to have heard the respondent no. 4 before passing the order. The District Inspector of Schools therefore, clearly erred in passing the order dated 23rd April, 1980. 4. If the District Inspector of Schools at all intended to withdraw the approval accorded by him earlier in four of respondent no. 4 on 26th December, 1977, it was imperative for him to have heard the respondent no. 4 before passing the order. The District Inspector of Schools therefore, clearly erred in passing the order dated 23rd April, 1980. By the impugned orders dated 19th May, 1980 the invalid and ineffective orders dated 29th January, 1980 and 23rd April, 1980 were withdrawn. In other words the impugned orders only rectified the mistake committed earlier. Consequently, there is no good reason for interference. 7. Learned counsel tor the petitioners urged that instead of filing representation to the Deputy Director of Education the petitioner sent a letter of request dated 22nd March, 1978 (Annexure III to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 4) to the District Inspector of Schools seeking review of the order dated 26th December, 1977. Learned counsel urged that since the order dated 26th December, 1977 was obtained by concealment of the facts, the District Inspector of Schools could review the order. Learned counsel added that since the District Inspector of Schools refused to review his .order dated 26th December, 1980, the petitioner made a representation to the Director of Education and the Director could act on that representation to pass the order dated 29th January, 1980. 8. We accept that if an order approving a certain appointment is obtained by concealment of facts, the District Inspector of Schools can review it. We also accept that by the letter dated 22nd March, 1978, the Manager of the Institution asked the District Inspector of Schools to review and recall the order dated 26th December, 1977. The District Inspector of Schools, however, turned down that request by his order dated 15th May, 1978. No appeal or representation could lie against that order and the only remedy that the petitioner had was to file a writ petition to assail the order dated 18th May, 1978. The petitioner did not however do so with the result that the order dated 15th May, 1978 has become final. 9. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15th May, 1978 being the final order of approval, a representation could lie against it to the Director of Education. The petitioner did not however do so with the result that the order dated 15th May, 1978 has become final. 9. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15th May, 1978 being the final order of approval, a representation could lie against it to the Director of Education. Now, in the first instance we do not agree that the order dated 15th May, 1978 was the final order of approval. As already stated that order was passed on 26th December, 1977. Regulation 6 (vii) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act provides for a representation against that order and not against an order refusing review of the order. Further, according to the Regulations the appeal against the order of approval must be filed within 2 weeks to the Deputy Director of Education. It was. however, on 15th April, 1979 that the Manager of the Institution wrote to the Director of Education far the first time (Annexure VII to the counter-affidavit of S D Misra). Apart from the fact that the letter was addressed to the Director of Education and not the Deputy Director of Education it was sent much after the expiry of the period of limitation. Further, even in that letter there was no request seeking review of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15th May, 1978 All that was asked for in that letter was that direction may be issued that the respondent no- 4 be paid salary of L. T. grade. The contention raised is, therefore, clearly misconceived and cannot be accepted. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that since the impugned order dated 19th May, 1980 and 17th June. 1980 were passed without hearing the petitioner, they are invalid and must be set aside. We have, however, already held earlier that the Director or Education and the District Inspector of Schools acted without jurisdiction in passing the earlier orders dated 29th January, 1980 and 23rd April, 1980 respective by and, consequently where in effective orders. It is, therefore, immaterial whether the subsequent order dated 19th May, 1980 and 17th lune, 1980 were passed with or without hearing the petitioner, for even if the order dated 19th May, 1980 and 17th June, 1980 had not been passed the order dated 29th January, 1980 and 23rd April, 1980 could not carry any effect. It is, therefore, immaterial whether the subsequent order dated 19th May, 1980 and 17th lune, 1980 were passed with or without hearing the petitioner, for even if the order dated 19th May, 1980 and 17th June, 1980 had not been passed the order dated 29th January, 1980 and 23rd April, 1980 could not carry any effect. 11. Learned counsel then urged that in any case the appointment of the respondent no. 4 was contrary to law about which the petitioner had made a representation and some authority must decide it. Learned counsel urged that we may at least issue a direction in that regard. We are once again unable to agree. As already stated the petitioner made request to the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd of March, 1978 to review and recall the order dated 26th December, 1977. The District Inspector of Schools there upon pissed an elaborate order on 15th May, 1977 refusing to review his order dated 26th December, 1977. In fact the matter was also considered by the Regional Deputy Director of Education who, after inviting comments from the Committee of Management, upheld the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 26th December, 1977 (see annexure VI to the counter-affidavit of S. D Misra). The controversy raised by the petitioner in the representation has thus been disposed of. Whether it has been decided rightly or wrongly cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. We have already said earlier that if the Committee of Management felt aggrieved against the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15th May, 1978, the petitioner should have filled a writ petition against that order promptly after it was passed. No such step has been taken by the petitioner. The orders dated 26th December, 1977 and 15th May, 1978 have thus become final and there can he no justification for issuing any direction in the present writ petition for the representation being reheard and decided afresh. 12. This writ petition has, therefore, no substance and is dismissed accordingly. No order however, is made as to costs.