JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the three petitioners, namely, (1) Managing Committee of Adarsh Intermediate College, Achhalda, (2) Sri Rani Swarup Shastri and (3) Shiv Charan Lal, the order dated 16-3-1979 (1975 ?) (Annexure 25) passed in appeals under S. 16-G(iii)(c) of the U. P. Intermediate Eduction Act, 1921 (for short the Act), the order dated 5-7-1974 (Annexure 13) and the order dated 17-7-1974 (Annexure `20') etc. are sought to be quashed. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 made an application that they want to withdraw the petition and that application was allowed. Now the petition remains only that of petitioner No. 3, namely, Shiv Charan Lal, primarily directed against the respondent No. 3, Sri Kailash Chandra Tripathi, Lecturer in Geography and against the remaining respondents there is no controversy left. 2. This case has got a chequered history. Adarsh Intermediate College, Achhalda, Etawah is governed by the provisions of the Act. On account of the refusal of the Management of the College to remove certain defects of deficiencies found on inspection Sri Har Narain Misra was appointed as Authorised Controller under S. 16-D(4) on 13-7-1973. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4777 of 1973 Adarsh Intermediate College and others v. State of U. P. and others was filed challenging the order of the appointment of the Authorised Controller and this petition was allowed on 14-3-1974 by this Court and the order appointing the Authorised Controller was quashed. Consequently, the Management of the College came in power. But during the time the Authorised Controller was in power, he constituted a selection committee as provided under S. 16-F of the Act and in that Selection Committee Sri Har Narain Misra, the Authorised Controller, the Principal and Sri Vidya Sagar Shukla Vice Principal were members. They invited applications according to the Rules and held interview in which there was a vacancy of a lecturer in Geography. The petitioner No. 3 was also candidate along with respondent No. 3 and others and ultimately respondent No. 3 was selected as Lecturer in Geography and respondents Nos. 4 to 11 were also selected for different vacancies by the said Selection Committee. The petitioner No. 3 was also candidate along with respondent No. 3 and others and ultimately respondent No. 3 was selected as Lecturer in Geography and respondents Nos. 4 to 11 were also selected for different vacancies by the said Selection Committee. When the order appointing the Authorised Controller was quashed and the Managing Committee came in power and it passed a resolution, although in that Committee of Management Sri Prem Narain Dubey and Sri Raghubar Dayal Savita were the teachers' representatives but in their place Sri Shiv Charan Lal, the present petitioner and one Sri Hori Lal were summoned as teachers' representatives. As Sri Shiv Charan Lal, the present petitioner, has failed before the Selection Committee in which respondent No. 3 was selected as lecturer in Geography he has his own grievances against respondent No. 3. This Committee of Management, however, took a decision on 2-5-1974 to terminate the services of all the nine teachers, including respondent No. 3, selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee by the Authorised Controller and papers were sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools who accorded his approval by the order dated 15-6-1974 which was later on modified by the order dated 5-7-1974. Against these orders appeals were filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Education, IVth Region, Allahabad. One appeal was filed by the present petitioner Shiv Charan Lal, directed against the selection of Sri Kailash Chandra Tripathi, respondent No. 3, selected as lecturer in Geography. By a detailed appellate order dated 16-3-1975 (Annexure 25), the appointment of respondent No. 3 along with other teachers was upheld even though made by the authorised Controller during the period he was in power. The present petition is directed against these orders. 3. By a detailed appellate order dated 16-3-1975 (Annexure 25), the appointment of respondent No. 3 along with other teachers was upheld even though made by the authorised Controller during the period he was in power. The present petition is directed against these orders. 3. The case of the respondent No. 3 is that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and during the period the Authorised Controller remained in power, he had all the powers of the Committee of Management and if he constituted a selection committee which selected different teachers including respondent No. 3 as Lecturer in Geography and those appointments were approved by the District Inspector of Schools and other authorities as well, the same cannot be set aside when the Management comes in power and there was no irregularity in the selection of respondent No. 3 who was better qualified than the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the latter before the Deputy Director of Education under S. 16-G(iii)(c) of the Act was correctly dismissed by the impugned orders in appeal dated 16-3-1975 (Annexure 25). 4. Sri B. Dixit appearing for the petitioner urged that the Authorised Controller has no power to constitute a selection committee and to hold selection of teachers and in any case the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as it was not in accordance with S. 16-F of the Act and as the order of the appointment of the Authorised Controller was quashed by this Court, hence the appointments made by him during his tenure also fell on that ground and in any case the post of Lecturer in Geography was to be filled in by promotion. Before the appointment of the Authorised Controller the Management had already decided to do the same but the Authorised Controller erred in filling up that vacancy by selection. The principle that there was no estoppel against statute was applicable. Reliance was placed on B.S. Minhas v. Indian Stastical Institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 and Achhey Lal v. Vice Chancellor, AIR 1985 All 1 . 5. Sri Ashok Khare, appearing for the respondent No. 3, urged that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and correctly selected respondent No. 3 who was better qualified candidate than the petitioner. Reliance was placed on B.S. Minhas v. Indian Stastical Institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 and Achhey Lal v. Vice Chancellor, AIR 1985 All 1 . 5. Sri Ashok Khare, appearing for the respondent No. 3, urged that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and correctly selected respondent No. 3 who was better qualified candidate than the petitioner. The Authorised Controller had all the powers of the Committee of Management and he could constitute the Selection Committee to make fresh appointment of teachers and lecturers if there are vacancies. As in the meeting of the Managing Committee the petitioner was also taken as teachers' representative and the petitioner had his own axe to grind against respondent No. 3. Hence he acted prejudicially against respondent No. 3 and got the resolution for termination of the services of the teachers appointed by the Authorised Controller passed. In other words the petitioner became a Judge in his own cause. There was no illegality in the selection of the teachers and lecturers made by the Selection Committee constituted by the Authorised Controller. It was further urged that the petitioner himself appeared before the Selection Committee but he failed, he cannot challenge the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. The first point which fails for our consideration is as to whether the Authorised Controller can constitute the Selection Committee as envisaged by S. 16-F of the Act. Suffice it to say that is under S. 16-D of the Act-when the Committee of Management failed to remove the defects and deficiencies found on inspection or otherwise, the Authorised Controller could be appointed by the State Government under sub-s. (4) of S. 16 and the Authorised Controller took over charge of the Management and worked accordingly for two years and in view of the first proviso to sub-s. (4) such period of the Authorised Controller would not last longer than five years. It is, therefore, obvious that, for five years, or for any terms the authorised Controller remained in power, he had all the powers of the Committee of Management and hence he could very well constitute the Selection Committee if there were vacancies to be filled in. 7. It is, therefore, obvious that, for five years, or for any terms the authorised Controller remained in power, he had all the powers of the Committee of Management and hence he could very well constitute the Selection Committee if there were vacancies to be filled in. 7. The second point is as to whether the Selection Committee constituted was valid as in that committee only the Authorised Controller, the Principal and the Vice- Principal were the members and they issued interview cards and a number of candidates appeared out of which respondents Nos. 3 to 10 were selected and that the petitioner was also a candidate but he failed. As the Principal and the Vice-Principal were also members of the Selection Committee and they were the best persons to look after the interest of Institution and they were well conversant with the academic standard, hence it could not be said that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted simply because it was constituted at the behest of the Authorised Controller. In such situation the De fecto Doctrine is applicable. The acts done or duties performed were done by the Authorised Controller when his appointment was legally made, later on his appointment may be set aside in view of the decision of this Court, but that does not mean that acts done or duties performed by him become illegal. Similarly where appointment of the District Judge was found illegal but it was held by the Supreme Court that decisions given and cases decided by him would not be rendered illegal rather they would be saved by De fecto Doctrine See Gokaraju Rang Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1473 . On these matters the Deputy Director of Education in appeal was very much conscious and he has scrutinised all the materials on the record and has come to the conclusion that the Selection Committee was properly constituted and the selection of respondent No. 3 was perfectly legal and valid. We are accordingly of the opinion that the decision of the Deputy Director of Education in appeal on this point was correct. 8. As regards the third point about the validity of the resolution made in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 2-5-1974 in which it was resolved to terminate the services of all the teachers appointed by the Authorised Controller. 8. As regards the third point about the validity of the resolution made in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 2-5-1974 in which it was resolved to terminate the services of all the teachers appointed by the Authorised Controller. In this connection it is worth mention that when the Committee of Management was initially constituted Sri Prem Narain Dubey and Sri Raghubir Dayal Savita were the representatives of the teachers in the management according to the seniority but somehow it was managed, that Sri Shiv Charan Lal, the present petitioner, and Sri Hari Lal, who according to their seniority were not qualified for acting as teachers representatives were summoned and participated as such in the deliberations of the committee of Management which resolved that the services of all the teachers and lecturers (including respondent No. 3) appointed during the period the Authorised Controller was in power, should be terminated. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail by the Deputy Director of Education in his appellate order (vide page 174 of the paper book). Further there is a maxim "NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDEX IN PROPRIA CAUSA" which obviously means that no man can be a judge in his own cause. It is relevant to refer to pages 277-278 of R. W. M. Dias's Jurisprudence (Fourth Edition) as follows : "of more specific manifestations of justice in the sense of distributive and corrective equality the following may be mentioned : (1) Redress for wrong doing whether in the form of punishment or payment of compensation, has to be proportionate to the injury. (2) In the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers the rules of natural justice should be observed. `Justice' said Lord Hawart, C. J., "should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done". The first rule of natural justice is that no one shall be a judge in his own cause. Secondly no one may be condemned unheard, the corollary of which is that he or she should be given reasonable notice of the nature of the case to be met." (See also Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (Proprietary), (1852) 3 HL Cases 759, R v. Hendon R. D. C. Ex parte Chorley, (1933) 2 KB 696. 9. Secondly no one may be condemned unheard, the corollary of which is that he or she should be given reasonable notice of the nature of the case to be met." (See also Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (Proprietary), (1852) 3 HL Cases 759, R v. Hendon R. D. C. Ex parte Chorley, (1933) 2 KB 696. 9. In the instant case the petitioner was interested in terminating the services of respondent No. 3 so that he himself may be promoted as lecturer and he as teachers' representative was a member of the Committee of Management in which this resolution was passed. We are, accordingly, satisfied that the resolution terminating the services of respondent No. 3, at least, (as we are concerned only with him in this petition) was not legally passed. 10. As regards the fourth point as to whether the petitioner was estopped from challenging the validity and illegality of the constitution of the Selection Committee before which he himself appeared but failed, suffice it to say that as we have already held that the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of S. 16-F of the Act by the Authorised Controller was legally constituted committee and that there was no illegality or infirmity in it and the same cannot be held to be improperly constituted. It is not neessary for us to decide this point for the disposal of the present petition. 11. As regards the last point that there could be no estoppel against statute and as the constitution of the Selection Committee was under a statutory provision of S. 16-F of the Act there could be no estoppel against it and the petitioner is authorised to challenge the same. In that connection the counsel for the petitioner relied on B. N. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 (supra) and Achhey Lal v. Vice-Chancellor, ( AIR 1985 All 1 ) (supra) to substantiate the plea that there could be no estoppel against the institute. We have no quarrel with this principle of law. But keeping in view the facts that the Authorised Controller has all the powers of the Committee of Management and if he constituted a selection committee including the Principal and the Vice-Principal and himself in accordance with the provisions of S. 16-F of the Act, it cannot be said, in any way to be illegally constituted. But keeping in view the facts that the Authorised Controller has all the powers of the Committee of Management and if he constituted a selection committee including the Principal and the Vice-Principal and himself in accordance with the provisions of S. 16-F of the Act, it cannot be said, in any way to be illegally constituted. We are satisfied that the Selection Committee was legally constituted and the petitioner appeared to be much aggrieved by his own failure before the Selection Committee and the selection of respondent No. 3. The petitioner has his own axe to grind and somehow he was made to act as representative of the teachers when actually some other teachers were selected as the teachers' representatives. It means that he was more interested in getting the resolution, terminating the appointments (particularly of respondent No. 3) made during the period the Authorised Controller was in power passed. We are of the opinion that the cases of B. N. Minhas and Achhey Lal (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. This point is also decided against the petitioner. 12. In the result, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case we refrain from making any order as to costs.