ORDER B.N. Sapru, J. - There is a college known as Raja Harpal Singh Mahavidyalaya, Sigramau in district Jaunpur. 2. A post of Lab-bearer in Geography fell vacant. The post was advertised and certain candidates, who had applied, were called for an interview. The petitioner appeared at the interview and he was selected. A letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 21-7-83. The proposal to appoint the petitioner was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval as provided in Statute 25.04 of the State Universities Act. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 29-7-83 gave his approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lab-bearer. 3. Sri Samar Bahadur Singh, respondent 4 made a complaint to the District Inspector of Schools against the appointment of the petitioner. The case of Samar Bahadur Singh, respondent 4, is that no interview had been held and the petitioner was appointed by the principal who wanted to appoint him. It is also his complaint that while Samar Bahadur Singh had applied for the post, he has not been called for the interview. 4. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur after some enquiries, to which the petitioner was not a party, passed an order recalling his earlier order dated 29-7-83 and disapproved of the appointment of the petitioner. This order of the District Inspector of Schools is dated 26-11-83 and is filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It recites that the date of birth of the petitioner was 5-7-1950 instead of 5-7-1957 as shown in the Transfer Certificate submitted by the petitioner. After setting aside the appointment of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools directed that the principal should consider Sri Samar Bahadur Singh for appointment. The petitioner on coming to know about the order of the District Inspector of Schools D/- 26-11-83 preferred an appeal, under the provisions of Statute 24.04. to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The Regional Deputy Director of Education by his order D/- 31-10-84 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education held that the petitioner was over-qualified for appointment as he was a Graduate and that the post is of a Lab-bearer. to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The Regional Deputy Director of Education by his order D/- 31-10-84 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education held that the petitioner was over-qualified for appointment as he was a Graduate and that the post is of a Lab-bearer. The Deputy Director of Education further found that the petitioner was holding the office of Pradhan of a Gram Sabha and as such he held that under the provisions of S. 5-A, Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner was disqualified for appointment. The principal of the college thereafter served an order terminating the petitioner's services. In the order it was specifically stated that the order of termination is being issued in pursuance of the order of the District Inspector of Schools and of the Deputy Director of Education in appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent that an appeal under Statute 24.04 can be filed against an order passed under Statutes 24.02 and 24.03. Statutes 24.02 and 24.03 of the Statute apply only in cases where a punishment is imposed or is sought to be imposed. The instant case is not a case of punishment at all and, therefore, Statute 24.04 was not applicable and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Eduction was incompetent. The order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education is also without jurisdiction as no appeal lay to him from the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. 6. Under Statute 25.04 it is provided that appointment of employees shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Education (higher Education), or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. It is further provided that if the approving authority does not within two months from receiving the proposal for approval intimate its disapproval or does not send any intimation in respect of such approval to the appointing authority the approving authority shall be deemed to have approved the appointment. In this case the proposal regarding appointment of the petitioner was sent for approval and was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 29-7-83. 7. There is no provision in Statute 25.04 for the recall of the order of approval. In this case the proposal regarding appointment of the petitioner was sent for approval and was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 29-7-83. 7. There is no provision in Statute 25.04 for the recall of the order of approval. The learned counsel for Sri Samar Bahadur Singh has submitted with great vehemence that since the order of approval had been obtained by fraud and collusion between the petitioner and the principal, the District Inspector of Schools was competent to recall or review his order. 8. There are a number of authorities on the proposition that even in cases where there is no power of review, an authority can recall its order which has been obtained by fraud of such activity on the part of the person who obtains the order. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the petitioner had shown his age incorrectly by showing that he was born on 5-7-1957 where as in fact he was born on 5-7-1950 and this was found as a fact by the District Inspector of Schools. He submits that the petitioner was over-age and had deliberately concealed his age. 10. The only provision regarding age at the time of recruitment is to be found in Statute 29.01, which runs as follows :- "29.01 for appointment of an employee in a college through direct recruitment, the minimum age of the candidate shall be 18 years and the maximum age for the post of routine clerk or a post in equivalent scale of pay, shall be 27 years, and for any other post referred to in Statutes 25.01 and 25.03 shall be 40 years. The maximum age shall be higher by five years in the case of a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe : Provided that with the prior consent of Director of Education. (Higher Education), the condition of maximum age limit of 40 years referred to above may be relaxed : Provided further that the maximum age limit shall not apply to an employee referred to in Statute 38.00" It is important to notice here that original Statute 29.01 ran as follows : "29.01 for appointment of an employee in a College through direct recruitment, the minimum age of the candidate shall be 18 years and the maximum age shall be 27 years. The maximum age shall be higher by five years in the case of a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe." 11. Under the original Statute 29.01 the minimum age limit was 18 years and maximum age limit was 27 years. This maximum age was relaxed by five years in the case of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. 12. What the drafters of Statute 29.01 have achieved while amending the Statute is as far as the maximum age limit is concerned, the maximum age of 27 years is for the post of routine clerk or a post in equivalent scale of pay and 40 years for recruitment to the posts mentioned in Statutes 25.01 and 25.03 for any other employee who is neither a routine grade clerk nor holds an equivalent post and who holds a post other than those specified in Statutes 25.01 and 25.03 there is no maximum age limit. The maximum would be of course the age of superannuation mentioned in the Statute. Consequently in this situation it cannot be said that the petitioner was over age on the date of his employment. 13. Admittedly the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur did not issue any notice to the petitioner of the complaint filed by Sri Samar Bahadur Singh, respondent 4, and passed the order recalling his earlier order without notice to the petitioner. This order of the District Inspector of Schools is bad on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice also. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated. 26-11-1983 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is quashed. it is unnecessary to quash the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 31-10-1984. However the order of the principal terminating the petitioner's services dated 16/19-11-1984 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) which is a consequential order is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to any arrears of salary, that may be due to him.