JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : There is a girls institution Tiwari Jwala Prasad Kanya Inter College, Etawah. The College runs classes for High School and Intermediate for the purpose of preparing them for the examinations held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad. The institution is managed under a Scheme of Administration framed under section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 20th December, 1971, the Joint Secretary (Administration) appointed the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, as the Administrator. This appointment was purported to have been made under Clause 20 of the Scheme of Administration. This order appointing the Administrator was challenged by means of a writ petition no. 1366 of 1972, Prabandh Samiti, Tiwari Jwala Prasad Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah v. State of U. P. and others. The petition was, ultimately, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 25th March 1976. It was held by the Division Bench that Para 20 of the Scheme of Administration is inconsistent and repugnant with the provisions of the Act and, accordingly, it should be treated as non-existent and outside the scope of Section 16-A of the Act. The petition was, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 20th December, 1971, by which the Administrator was appointed, was quashed. After the order appointing the Administrator was quashed by this Court, the Deputy Secretary (education) passed an order on 26th October, 1978, purporting to be an order under section 16-D (4) of the Act appointing an Authorised Controller. This order dated 26th October, 1978, was again challenged in this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 9514 of 19/8. In that writ petition, an application was made for staying the operation of the order appointing the Authorised Controller. The application for stay was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, the State Government has been passing one order after another continuing the term of the appointment of the Authorised Controller in the institution. The last order before filing the present petition was an order dated 2nd May, 1986. The petitioner, consequently, has challenged the order dated 2nd May, 1986, appointing the Authorised Controller. This order was to remain effective till 26th October, 1986. The last order before filing the present petition was an order dated 2nd May, 1986. The petitioner, consequently, has challenged the order dated 2nd May, 1986, appointing the Authorised Controller. This order was to remain effective till 26th October, 1986. The present petition was filed in this Court on 10th July, 1986. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government again extended the appointment of the Authorised Controller by an order dated 4th October, 1986; hence the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the writ petition and the order dated 4th October, 1986, was also to be challenged. This order dated 4th October, 1986, extending the term of the Authorised Controller till 26th April, 1987, has also been challenged. 3. The main bone of contention in the present petition is whether the Scheme of Administration having a Red Cover was the Scheme of Administration, which was applicable to the institution, or whether the Scheme of Administration having a green cover was applicable. 4. It is not disputed that the Scheme of Administration having a red cover was the first Scheme of Administration and the Scheme of Administration having a green cover was a subsequent amended Scheme of Administration. The difference between the two Schemes was that under the original Scheme, the members of the Arya Sabha, tsaya Shahr, Etawah, were authorised to elect the members of the Committee of Management while under the Scheme of Administration with green cover, the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, was authorised to elect a Committee of Management from amongst its members. In effect, under the First Scheme, it were the local members of the Arya Sabha, Naya Shahr Etawah who were called upon to administer the College while under the amended Scheme, it were the members of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Uttar Pradesh, who were called upon to administer the College. In paragraph 8 of the petition, it has been categorically stated that the District Magistrate, Etawah held an enquiry as to which Scheme was applicable to the institution. In paragraph 8 of the petition, it has been categorically stated that the District Magistrate, Etawah held an enquiry as to which Scheme was applicable to the institution. The enquiry was held through the City Magistrate, Etawah, who, after hearing all concerned and after looking into the records, reported that the Principal Smt. Shakuntala Yadav committed a fraud and replaced the original Scheme of Administration under red cover by a Scheme of Administration under a green cover changing the main provision in regard to the person authorised to elect the Committee of Management in order to make the election impossible. After this enquiry was conducted, the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 8th May, 1981, approved the Scheme of Administration under red cover. This order dated 8th May, 1981, has been annexed as Annexure 8' to the writ petition. 5. After the filing of the petition, a counter affidavit of Jagdish Singh was filed on behalf of the Authorised Controller, who is respondent no. 3 in the petition. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that after the passing of the order dated 8th May, 1981, the Deputy Director of Education recalled the said order by another order dated 4th December, 1981, on the ground that the order dated 8th May, 1981, had been obtained by making misrepresentation and practising fraud. According to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner did not have knowledge of the order dated 4th December, 1981, and, as such, after this counter affidavit was filed, an amendment application has been moved in this Court challenging the order dated 4th December, 1981. 6. The position, which emerges from the aforementioned facts is that the petitioner in the present petition has now challenged the order dated 4th October, 1986, passed by the State Government extending the term of the Authorised Controller till 26th April, 1987, and the order dated 4th December, .981, by which the Scheme of Administration under the green cover has been approved after recalling the order dated 8th May, 1981, approving the Scheme of Administration under the red cover. In the petition, it has been categorically stated that in pursuance of the Scheme under the red cover, elections of the Committee of Management have been held from time to time under the supervision of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabna, Uttar Pradesh, and the last election was held on 2nd March, 1986, in which the petitioners were elected and the elections held by the members of the Arya Sabha, Naya Asthan, Etawah, were approved by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, on 15th March, 1986. 7. Sri V. C. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the order dated 4th December, 1981, on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to him before passing the said order, He has further urged that there was no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner On the other hand, it was the respondent no. 3 in collusion with Smt. Shakuntala Yadav that the fraud was committed and the order dated 4th December, 1981, was obtained from the Deputy Director of Education. The submission is that the order dated 4th December, 1981, is a void order and, as such, the Scheme of Administration under the green cover is not the Scheme of Administration applicable to the institution, but, in fact, the Scheme of Administration under the red cover, as approved by the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 8th May, 1981, is the real Scheme. 8. We have beard the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri H. S. Nigam for the Authorised Controller, who is the respondent no. 3 in the present petition. Section 16-A of the Act provides that there has to be a Scheme of Administration for every institution. The Scheme of Administration has to provide, amongst other matters, for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. It has been further provided that the head of the institution and two teachers thereof, who shall be selected by rotation according to seniority, in the manner to be prescribed by regulations, shall be ex officio members of the Committee of Management with a right to vote. It has been further provided that the head of the institution and two teachers thereof, who shall be selected by rotation according to seniority, in the manner to be prescribed by regulations, shall be ex officio members of the Committee of Management with a right to vote. Sub-clause (5) of Section 16-A of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose of this petition, provides that the Scheme of Administration of every institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director and no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without the prior approval of the Director. Sub-clause (5) of Section 16-A of the Act is quoted below : "16-A (5). The Scheme of Administration of every institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director and no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without the prior approval of the Director. Provided that where the Management of an institution is aggrieved by an order of the Director refusing to approve an amendment or change in the Scheme of Administration, the State Government, on the representation of the Management, may, if it is satisfied that the proposed amendment or change in the Scheme of Administration is in the interest of the institution, order the Director to approve of the same, and thereupon the Director shall act accordingly." 9. On an examination of the provisions of Section 16-A as well as other provisions of this Act, we find that there is no specific power of review given to the Director authorising him to review the order passed under section 16-A (5) of the Act approving the Scheme of Administration of the institution. Subclause (5) of Section 16-A of the Act, quoted above, clearly provides that every Scheme of Administration applicable to an institution is subject to the approval of the Director. The power given to the Director is either to approve the Scheme or not to approve the Scheme. There is no other power given. 10. By order dated 8th May, 1981, the Director had approved the Scheme under the red cover The order dated 8th May, 1981, is a well considered order passed after due enquiry and after hearing the parties. There is no other power given. 10. By order dated 8th May, 1981, the Director had approved the Scheme under the red cover The order dated 8th May, 1981, is a well considered order passed after due enquiry and after hearing the parties. In the circumstances of the present case, by the mere use of the expression 'interim' in the end of the order does not take away the effect of the order approving the Scheme. The order dated 8th May, 1931, consequently, has to be taken as a final order approving the Scheme of Administration under the red cover. It is well settled that where there is no provision under the Act for review of an order granting approval or disapproval, the Authority can revoke or recall its earlier order only if it is obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud and in the absence of any mistake, misrepresentation or fraud, the Authority concerned has no jurisdiction to revoke its earlier order Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in Radhey Shyam Chaubey v. The District Inspector of Schools, 1978 Labour and Industrial Cases 191; 1977 ALJ 451 and also the decision in Rajendra Tripathi v. The Deputy Director of Education Gorakhpur, 1976 AWC (SOC) 22 = 1976 (2) ALR 518. 11. It has also been held by a Division Bench in Smt. Sundari Verma v. The Committee of Management, 1981 LLT (Services) 24 that once an order of approval of the appointment of a teacher has been made, the said order cannot be recalled without affording an opportunity to the teacher, as it is a settled law that an order adverse to a party cannot be passed in his absence. We agree with the principles laid down in this case. Once an order of approval has been passed approving a Scheme of Administration, another order recalling the said order can only be passed after affording an opportunity to the persons, who would be affected by that order. In the absence of any notice to the affected persons, the Authority has no jurisdiction to recall the order and the order, if any, would be without any jurisdiction and void. 12. In the present case, a counter affidavit has been filed by Wazir Hasan an Assistant Supervisor in the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Fourth Region, Allahabad. In the absence of any notice to the affected persons, the Authority has no jurisdiction to recall the order and the order, if any, would be without any jurisdiction and void. 12. In the present case, a counter affidavit has been filed by Wazir Hasan an Assistant Supervisor in the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Fourth Region, Allahabad. In paragraph 8 of his affidavit, it has been stated that the order dated 8th May, 1981, was cancelled by the Deputy Director of Education on 4th December, 1981, and further that there is nothing on the record to show that the order was communicated to Dr. Munna Lal Misra or not, or whether it was passed after hearing the parties. This affidavit was filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, respondent no. 4, himself. It is, consequently, admitted on the record that the aggrieved person Dr. Munna Lal Misra was neither heard nor any opportunity was afforded to him before cancelling the order dated 8th May, 198], and neither the said order was communicated to him and that was the reason why he could challenge only after filing the present writ petition and after moving the amendment application. Since the order dated 4th December, 1981, has been passed without notice to the aggrieved person, the order is clearly void in law. Even on merits, we have examined the order dated 4th December, 1981. The sole basis of passing this order is that the Authorised Controller filed a certified copy of the Scheme of Administration, which was filed in Civil Misc Writ No. 1366 of 1972. Mere filing of a certified copy was not enough to establish that there was any mistake, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. There is neither any such finding recorded in the order. In fact, as stated earlier, an order dated 8th May, 1981, had been passed after due enquiry by the District Magistrate, who held the enquiry through the City Magistrate, Etawah. In the circumstances, mere filing of a certified copy in a petition of the year 1972, did not by itself establish that the order dated 8th May, 1981, was an order obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. In this view of the matter, the order dated 4th December, 1981 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 13. In the circumstances, mere filing of a certified copy in a petition of the year 1972, did not by itself establish that the order dated 8th May, 1981, was an order obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. In this view of the matter, the order dated 4th December, 1981 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 13. Section 16-D of the Act lays down as to under what circumstances, the State Government is authorised to appoint an Authorised Controller. Subsection (4) of SECTION 16-D of the Act is relevant for the purpose of the present case. It is quoted below : "16-D (4). Where the Committee of Management of an institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (3) or within such extended time as the Director may from time to time allow, or where the Director is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) exists, he may, recommend to the State Government to appoint an Authorised Controller for that institution, and thereupon, the State Government may, by order, for reasons to be recorded, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the Management of such institution and its properties : Provided that if the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper management of the institution and its properties, it may, from time to time, extend the operation of the order, for such period, not exceeding one year at a time, as it may specify, so however, that the total period of operation of the order, including the period specified in the initial order, but excluding the period specified in sub-section (8), does not exceed five years : Provided further that if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the institution, the Authorised Controller shall continue to function as such, until the State Government is satisfied that a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted. " 14. On a reading of sub-clause (4) of Section 16-D of the Act, it is clear that an Authorised Controller can be appointed for a period not exceeding two years. " 14. On a reading of sub-clause (4) of Section 16-D of the Act, it is clear that an Authorised Controller can be appointed for a period not exceeding two years. Under the first Proviso, the State Government has been authorised to extend the operation of the order for such period not exceeding one year at a time, including the period specified in the initial order, but not for more than a total period of five years. In the second Proviso, however, if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the institution, the Authorised Controller is to continue to function as such until the State Government is satisfied that a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted. 15. On a reading of the second Proviso, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Authorised Controller can continue to function as an Authorised Controller of the institution after the period of five years only till a lawfully constituted Committee of Management comes into existence and not beyond that. It is not the intention of the Legislature that the period of the Authorised Controller may be continued arbitrarily for an unlimited period without any reasons depriving the right of the Management to administer the institution. 16. In the instant case, since we have held that the order dated 4th December, 1981, is void, the order dated 8th May 1981, is restored. According to the order dated 8th May, 1981, the Scheme of Administration under the red cover is a duly approved Scheme of Administration. The elections have already been held under the said Scheme on 2nd March, 1986. There is no rival Committee of Management. Since there is already a lawfully constituted Committee of Management the order appointing the Authorised Controller on 4th October, 1986, is liable to be quashed. 17. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 4th December, 1981 and 4th October, 1986, are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 3, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah, who is the Authorised Controller of the institutior, is directed to give forthwith the charge of the management of the institution to the Committee of Management elected on 2nd March, 1986. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.