JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. 1. Committee of Management, Atarra Post Graduate College, Atarra, District Banda, has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of the Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi dated 29th June, 1987. 2. The facts briefly are these. At Atarra, district Banda, there is a Post Graduate College run in the name of Atarra Post Graduate College. It is affiliated with the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. On the recommendation of the Higher Education Service Commission, Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. 2, was appointed on probation as Principal of the College for a period of one year. He joined on 1-11-1984. On evaluation, the Committee found that his work was not satisfactory and, as such, passed a resolution dated 6-10-1985 extending the probationary period by a further period of one year. On 11-10-1986, a decision was taken by the Committee of Management for initiating proceedings for the termination of the service of Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur. In accordance with the resolution, Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur was called upon by the committee for giving his explanation in terms of section 31 (3) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. The relevant portion of the aforesaid provision is quoted below : "Provided further that no such order of termination shall be passed except after notice to the teacher concerned giving him an opportunity of explanation in respect of the grounds on which his services are proposed to be terminated." According to the Committee of Management a meeting was convened for 20th October, 1986, for considering the proposal for termination. In the meeting held on the aforesaid date, the Committee passed a resolution terminating respondent no. 2. Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur was intimated about the aforesaid decision of the Committee of Management by means of a notice dated 20-10-86 whereby he was also informed that the papers had been forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor for obtaining his approval and that the decision of the Committee terminating his service would become effective after the receipt of approval. Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. 2 filed his representation dt. 13-11-1986 to the Vice Chancellor. 3. The aforesaid decision of the Committee of Management along with other papers were sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi for his approval. The Vice-Chancellor after considering the papers and the representation of Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. 2 filed his representation dt. 13-11-1986 to the Vice Chancellor. 3. The aforesaid decision of the Committee of Management along with other papers were sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi for his approval. The Vice-Chancellor after considering the papers and the representation of Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. 2, accorded approval on 7-12- 1986 to the termination. Before granting approval, the Vice Chancellor personally heard the representative of the Committee of Management as well as respondent no. 2, and passed the following order : * * * * 4. Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur filed writ no. 20977 of 1986 in this court. The writ petition was rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to respondent of approaching the Chancellor under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. After the dismissal of the writ petition, respondent no. 2 filed a reference application before the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University on 15-2-1987, intimation of which was received by the petitioner Committee of Management, by means of notice dated 15-5-1987. The committee sent a reply to the Chancellor on 11-6-1987. In the meantime, Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association filed an application for recalling the order giving approval to the termination of respondent no. 2. Through the letter dated 15-5-87, the Committee of Management was informed by the Vice Chancellor that he had constituted a Committee of three persons consisting of (1) Deputy Director of Education; (2) a nominee of the Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association and (3) representative of the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management protested against the enquiry of the case being conducted by the Vice Chancellor when approval by him under section 35 (2) of the State Universities Act had already been given. On 29-6-1987, the Vice Chancellor recalled the order according approval dated 7-12-86 on the finding that no meeting of the Committee of Management took place on 11-10-86 and holding its meeting on 20th October, 1986 was suspicious. It may be recalled that it was in the latter meeting that the decision for termination of Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur had been taken. The Vice Chancellor recalled the earlier order by relying on the report of the Enquiry Committee appointed by him. 5. It may be recalled that it was in the latter meeting that the decision for termination of Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur had been taken. The Vice Chancellor recalled the earlier order by relying on the report of the Enquiry Committee appointed by him. 5. The petitioner, Committee of Management, challenges the order of the Vice Chancellor on the grounds :- i. that the Vice Chancellor did not have the power to review his own order as the said power has not been conferred by the Statute. ii. appointment of sub committee amount to delegation of quasi judicial power of the Vice Chancellor and, as such, in the absence of the provision to that effect, the delegation was invalid. iii. opportunity of hearing by the Vice Chancellor having not been given, the order dated 29-6-87 recalling the previous approval dated 7-12-86 was beyond his jurisdiction, 6. Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. 2, has filed a counter affidavit contesting the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has been averred that as the approval dated 7-12-1986 had been obtained from the Vice Chancellor by a delebarate concealment of material fact, the Vice Chancellor had the power to recall the same and by recalling the same justice has been done to the parties. The next argument of the respondent's counsel was that the sub committee had gone to the College premises and examined the papers in the presence of the representative of the Committee of Management and that should be deemed to have complied with the principles of natural justice. 7. In Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, 1987 Ed. Cases 334=1988 AWC 347, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question whether the Vice Chancellor had power to review his previous order in the absence of a specific provision. The Supreme Court held : "It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal acts on a quasi judicial authority. The provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal acts on a quasi judicial authority. The provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing the order and the order is nullity." 8. There is, therefore, no doubt that on the question about the power of the Vice Chancellor to review, there being a direct decision of the Supreme Court, the matter is not resintegrate and by following the above, we hold that the Vice Chancellor does not have power under the U.P. State Universities Act to review the order granting or refusing to grant approval. In the case of Smt. Kuntesh Gupta (supra) the Supreme Court held that the order granting review passed by the Vice Chancellor was a nullity as it was absolutely without jurisdiction. Dr. R. Dwivedi attempted to distinguish the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court by saying that where, as here, the approval had been obtained from the Vice Chancellor by misrepresentation and fraudulently, the Vice Chancellor has ample jurisdiction to review the same. 9. The principle that the power to review must be conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication, applies to judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. The proceedings under section 35 of the U. P. State Universities Act are quasi judicial in nature. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta, every judicial and quasi judicial authority has power to correct its mistake if that was occasioned because of the fraud or misrepresentation. As to whether in a particular case, the judgment or order of the quasi judicial authority was effected because of that misrepresentation is a question of fact to be decided in each case. In the instant case, the Vice Chancellor recorded a finding that the Committee of Management represented facts about holding of meetings on 11-10-86 and 26-10-86 which were wrong. If misrepresentation would have been established to the satisfaction of the Vice Chancellor after affording opportunity to both the parties concerned, this court could refuse to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. If misrepresentation would have been established to the satisfaction of the Vice Chancellor after affording opportunity to both the parties concerned, this court could refuse to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In Kunwar Suraj Autar v. The Chancellor, Rohilkhand University, 1981 Education Cases 86, a Division Bench has held: "In view of our decision we hold that the Vice Chancellor had jurisdiction to review his order dated 22nd August, 1974, as it was obtained on a misrepresentation of facts." A misrepresentation is a false statement of a substantive fact, or any conduct which renders to a belief of a substantive fact material to proper understanding of the matter in hand made with intent to deceive or mislead. In the instant case, Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur and the Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association represented to the Vice Chancellor that the meetings of the Committee of Management had neither taken place on 11th October, 1986 nor on 20th October, 1986. Consequently, it was on misrepresentation to the Vice Chancellor that the meetings had taken place on these two dates, that the approval was received. Misrepresentation being false and fraudulent was a representation contrary to the fact, made by the Committee of Management with the knowledge of its falsehood and was thus a cause of the Vice Chancellor granting approval. 11. It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Committee of Management was entitled to an opportunity from the Vice Chancellor before the order dated 7-12-1986 was recalled. The Vice Chancellor did not, admittedly, give any opportunity after having received the report of the Committee by observing : ***** 12. As found above, the Vice Chancellor could be entitled to recall the approval by holding that the facts were misrepresented to him by the Committee, but that required an opportunity to be given to the Committee. To us it appears that the Vice Chancellor took a completely erroneous view in refusing to give an opportunity to the Committee of Management. Even if the Committee of Management had produced Register and Minute Book before the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor should have given a copy of the Enquiry Report to the Committee and further opportunity before reviewing or recalling the order dated 7-12-1986. 13. A quasi judicial function is one which stands mid-way between a judicial and administrative function. 13. A quasi judicial function is one which stands mid-way between a judicial and administrative function. It has a duty to follow the judicial approach in determining the question of fact involved in the case or matter before it. It requires the authority to give an opportunity of hearing or placing the view points of both the parties. The Vice Chancellor erred in recalling the earlier order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management, as a result of which the order dated 29-6-1987 is completely vitiated. 14. The next question that may be considered is whether the Vice Chancellor could appoint the Enquiry Committee for investigation and finding out the fact. We have already pointed out that the general rule is that a quasi judicial tribunal becomes functus officio as soon as it makes a decision relating to a particular matter. It cannot, therefore, review its decision unless so empowered. This does not, however, mean that in the absence of statutory provisions, it is powerless to exercise those powers which are inherent in every judicial tribunal, e. g.,- (a) to reopen an ex parte proceedings,-not on the ground that a party failed to appear,-but on the ground that a decision was reached behind the back of a necessary party, (b) to ratify its own mistake, which was committed overlooking a change in the law or misrepresentation of relevant facts. The principle that any statutory power, if specifically vested in certain person, must be exercised by that very person and no other, applies to quasi judicial power. 15. For the above proposition, reference may be made to a decision in Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, 1953 (1) All EL Reports, 1113. It was held 2 "The power ........................ on the local board was a judicial or quasi judicial function and the local board had no power to delegate it or subsequently to ratify a decision by a person to whom the power of suspension had been improperly delegated and, therefore, the suspension of the plaintiffs by the port manager, was a nullity; the court had power in their discretion to make a declaration relating to the validity of the decision of a statutory tribunal; and in the circumstances would grant the plaintiffs a declaration that their suspension was wrongful and a nullity." 16. In Vine v. National Dock Labour Board, (1956) 3 All ER 939 the same view was taken by the House of Lords when it held that the plaintiffs' purported dismissal was a nullity since the local board had no power to delegate its disciplinary functions. It was suggested that the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor included a representative or a nominee of the Committee of Management also did if the Committee did not choose to send its nominee, the Committee could not contend either that the constitution of the Committee was illegal or that the power could not be delegated for making enquiry about the affairs of the College which led to the termination of the services of respondent no. 2. We do not find any merit in this submission. 17. Before us, Dr. Dwivedi urged that as Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur had been appointed in pursuance of the selection made by the Commission constituted under the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, the Committee of Management had no power to propose for removal/termination of Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur's services. He urged that the Commission Act was a self contained and considered all aspects of the matter and as U. P. State Universities Act did not apply, section 31 of the same did not apply. We are unable to accept this contention. The Commission Act was enacted to establish a service commission for the selection of teachers for appointment to the Colleges affiliated to or recognised by a University, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 18. The object and purpose of the Commission was a limited one. It did not regulate conditions of service of a teacher recommended by it for appointment. They are governed by the U. P. State Universities Act. Section 30 of the Commission Act provides : "30. Act to have overriding effect :- The provisions of this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding to the contrary contained in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, or the Statutes or Ordinance made thereunder." Under this section, Commission Act has been given overriding effect over the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 or the Statutes or Ordinances only to the limited extent e. g. that if any thing is contained in the Commission Act that will override the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act. If no provisions have been made with regard to certain matters, they would be continued to be governed by the State Universities Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 lays such college to dismiss or remove a teacher would have to be reported to the Vice Chancellor and that unless it has been approved, it will not be given effect to. We are of opinion that sub-section (2) of section 35 applies to the facts of this case. 19. In the present case, we have seen above that the Vice Chancellor rescinded the readier approval without opportunity to the Management, therefore, we set aside his order dated 29-6-1987. However, it will be open to him to take fresh proceedings on the representation against the approval given by him initiated by the Bundelkhand Universities Teachers Association. This may be possible to argue that the association did not have a locus standi to agitate the cause of action for Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur but seeing the entire circumstances, it appears to us to be proper and appropriate that the Vice Chancellor may without entering into the technicality of the proper representation coming before him, look into the representation and if he finds that an untrue statement of fact was made to him about the meetings dated 11th and 20th October, 1986, he may recall the order dated 7-12-1986, granting approval. 20. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 29-6-1987 is quashed. The salary which has already been received by Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur under the stay order passed by this Court would not be refundable at present, but if ultimately the Vice Chancellor finds that he gave the approval on incorrect facts, in that event, the money would have to be refunded by him. From October, 1988, he will not be entitled to receive the salary, till the Vice Chancellor does not decide the representation in his favour. Petition allowed.