JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this petition. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Budh Vidyapith Degree College, Naugarh (Basti) which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University through a Selection Committee. After the recommendation of the Selection Committee the papers were forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The papers included the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner in respect of M. A. Examination conducted by that University indicating that the petition has secured 57.7% marks. The Vice-Chancellor considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee and thereafter accorded his approval by an order dated 18-3-1982. It appears that subsequently it was brought to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor that his approval had been obtained on wrong facts and mis-representation. The material furnished before the Vice-Chancellor established that in fact the petitioner had obtained only 51.7% marks at the M. A. examination and not 57.7% as disclosed by the mark sheet filed by the petitioner. In response to the notice issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the petitioner to show cause why the order according approval should not be recalled, the petitioner filed a representation which was duly considered by the Vice-Chancellor. On a consideration of the relevant records maintained by the University and the representation of the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor recalled the approval granted by him on 20-10-1984. 2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a representation before the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The Chancellor has by the impugned order dated 17-12-1985 rejected the representation of the petitioner. He has observed that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as a lecturer in view of the marks actually obtained by her at the said examination. He has further observed that the Vice-Chancellor was competent in law to recall his approval as the same had been granted as a result of misrepresentation of facts. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no misrepresentation of facts in so far as the petitioner was concerned. The petitioner had filed the mark sheet which was issued to her and if there was any mistake in the mark sheet, the petitioner could not be said to have misrepresented the facts before the Vice-Chancellor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no misrepresentation of facts in so far as the petitioner was concerned. The petitioner had filed the mark sheet which was issued to her and if there was any mistake in the mark sheet, the petitioner could not be said to have misrepresented the facts before the Vice-Chancellor. Learned counsel submitted that the Vice-Chancellor, had, therefore, no power to revoke the approval. The Chancellor has committed an error in not setting aside the Vice-Chancellor's order on this ground. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the mark sheet on the basis of which the petitioner was selected and subsequently appointed did not correctly represent the marks actually obtained by her at the M. A. Examination. The Vice-Chancellor has upon an examination of the relevant records found that the petitioner had actually obtained 51.7% marks and the mark sheet wrongly showed she had obtained 57.7% marks. It is also indisputable that the petitioner was ineligible for appointment as a lecturer on the basis of the marks actually obtained by her at the said examination. Under statute 11.13 (1) (b) in order to be eligible for appointment as a lecturer, the candidate must have had consistently good academic record with a least first or high second class Master's degree in the subject. Learned counsel did not dispute that an aggregate of 51.7% could not legally be regarded as high second class degree. 5. The position which emerges out of the aforesaid facts, therefore, is that if the Selection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor had been aware of the fact that actually the petitioner had secured only 51.7% marks, the petitioner could not have been selected and appointed. Nor would the Vice-Chancellor have accorded the approval to the petitioner's appointment. The approval was thus granted on the basis of a wrong fact, namely, that the petitioner possessed the requisite minimum academic qualifications. In my opinion, where the approval is granted to an appointment on the basis of an error of such a fundamental character, the Vice-Chancellor would be perfectly competent on being apprised of true facts to revoke the approval, of course, after affording to the teacher the opportunity of being hoard in the matter. The Chancellor was, therefore, right in affirming the order of the Vice-Chancellor revoking the approval. 6. The Chancellor was, therefore, right in affirming the order of the Vice-Chancellor revoking the approval. 6. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.