JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate College, Bahuchara, district Pratapgarh is a duly recognised Intermediate College and is hence governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder (hereinafter called the Act and the Regulations respectively). A post of the Principal of the said College was advertised in the Sunday Pioneer D/- 5th Sept., 1976 and simultaneously an advertisement was also made in the Dainik Jagran in pursuance of the provisions of Regn. 10 of Chap. II. The District Inspector of Schools nominated Sri Pashupati Prasad Singh, Principal, M. L. K. Post Graduate College, Balrampur, district Gonda, Sri Ram Kumar Tripathi, Principal Degree College, Akbarpur and Sri Sri Nath Singh, Principal, Maharana Pratap Degree College, Sultanpur as Experts of the Selection Committee for the selection of the Principal. The Committee of Management designated Sri Adya Prasad Singh, the Manager of the College, as the Chairman of the Selection Committee and Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, a member of the Committee of Management, as a member of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee made interview of the candidates who appeared before it on 3-11-1976 and unanimously prepared a list of three candidates in order of preference placing the petitioner at the first place, Sri Beni Bahadur Singh at the second place and Sri Kadedin Singh at the third place vide annexure 6. The Selection Committee by reason of the provisions of S. 16-E (6) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act communicated its recommendations together with the list of three candidates drawn in order of merit to the committee of Management which on 14th Nov., 1976 considered the recommendations of the Selection Committee at its meeting held on the same day at 3.00 p.m. and resolved to appoint the petitioner as the Principal-of the College on one year's probation-The petitioner was then issued an appointment letter D/- 14th Nov., 1976 appointing him to the post of the Principal of the College, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition. The petitioner took over as Principal of the said College with effect from 15th Nov., 1976. The petitioner took over as Principal of the said College with effect from 15th Nov., 1976. The District Inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 1, sent a letter D/- 14th Feb., 1977 to the President of the College stating, inter alia, that the selection of the petitioner as Principal of the College was wrong and declaring the proceedings of the Selection Committee as null and void. He also directed the reversion of the petitioner to L. T. grade. The District Inspector of Schools purported to issue that order, annexure 10, in exercise of his power under Regn. II (1) of Chap, II. The petitioner has impugned that order of opposite party No. 1, inter alia, on the grounds that the District Inspector of Schools did not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order and at any rate the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed against him. The petition has been opposed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing Counsel. 2. It is not in dispute that the District Inspector of Schools had passed the impugned order contained in annexure 10 in exercise of his power under Regn. 11 (1) aforesaid which reads as under : "11 (1). It shall be the duty of the experts, attending selection of a head of institution or teacher to scrutinise all papers concerning selection and in particular to examine that the candidates called for interview have been rightly so called as per provisions of the Act and the regulations and that no candidate has been deprived of the opportunity of interview which rightly should have gone to him. They should furnish a certificate to this effect in the proceedings of the selection as proposed in the statement in Appendix `C'. In case they feel that a candidate has been deprived of the legitimate opportunity of interview as a result of any error or omission, they shall inform the Inspector with full details of the case. If the Inspector is satisfied that the proceedings of the interview have been vitiated thereby he shall declare the proceedings of the interview null and void and shall pass orders, for holding of selection again in such cases. If the Inspector is satisfied that the proceedings of the interview have been vitiated thereby he shall declare the proceedings of the interview null and void and shall pass orders, for holding of selection again in such cases. The orders of the Inspector in this regard shall be final and binding on all concerned." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requisite conditions did not exist at all which could entitle the District Inspector of Schools to exercise his power under Regn. 11 (1). Under the provisions of Regn. 11 (1) the experts attending the selection have to satisfy themselves by scrutiny of all papers concerning selection that the candidates called for interview have been rightly called and that no candidate has been deprived of the opportunity of interview as per the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Further, it is only on the complaint of an expert pointing out violation of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations that the District Inspector of Schools can apply his mind in deciding whether the proceedings are vitiated and are null and void. In the case in hand no member of the experts of the selection committee made any such complaint. There was, therefore, no occasion or reason for the District Inspector of Schools to exercise his power under Regn. 11 (1). That apart, sub-sec. (8) of S. 16-E provides that the Committee of Management shall, where it does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, refer the matter together with the reasons of such disagreement to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of appointment to the post of Head of Institution and to the Inspector in the case of appointment to the post of teacher of an institution, and his decision shall be final. The Committee of Management did not in the instant case refer the matter together with reasons of any disagreement to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The Inspector did not have any jurisdiction under sub-sec. (8) of S. 16-E to deal with the matter because the case pertained to the appointment to the post of the principal of the Institution and not to the post of a teacher of the Institution. Moreover, sub-sec. The Inspector did not have any jurisdiction under sub-sec. (8) of S. 16-E to deal with the matter because the case pertained to the appointment to the post of the principal of the Institution and not to the post of a teacher of the Institution. Moreover, sub-sec. (10) of S. 16-E provides that where the State Government, in cases of the appointment of Head of Institution is satisfied that any person has been appointed as Head of Institution in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the State Government may after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, cancel such appointment and pass such consequential order as may be necessary. The District Inspector of Schools does not get any such power under S. 16-E of the Act. The impugned order was, therefore, incompetent. Moreover, it could not be refuted that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard by the District Inspector of Schools before the said order was passed. The impugned order is hence violative of the principles of natural justice also. Viewed from any angle, the order contained in Annexure 10 is unsustainable. It is without jurisdiction; hence void. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the impugned Order No. 5633-42/76-77 D/- 14th Feb., 1977 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 1 a copy of which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition is quashed. The opposite parties are commanded not to revert the petitioner from the post of Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate College, Bahuchara, district Pratapgarh in pursuance of the said impugned order.