JUDGMENT N.L.Ganguly 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Nainital dated 1st October 1991. By the impugned order, the District Inspector of Schools who had approved the appointment of the petitioner on L.T. grade by order dated 3-7-91 was cancelled by him. Title result was the termination of the petitioner's service. The petitioner submitted that she is fully qualified to be appointed as Asstt. Teacher in L T. grade. She passed her High School, Intermediate and B. A. in Had division and M.A in IIIrd division and obtained L.T. diploma for teaching as L. T. grade teacher. An advertisement was published for appointment of Asstt. L T. grade teacher on adhoo basis as the post of one L T. grade teacher had fallen vacant on account of ad hoc promotion of the previous L.T. grade teacher to Lecturer grade on adhoc promotion. There were three: such promotions and three such LT. grade vacancies to be filed in by adhoc appointment. The petitioner had passed her B.A. with Hindi, Sanskrit and History. According to advertisement in the news paper Amar Ujala, it was specified that preference would be given to candidates having Hindi and Sanskrit in B. A. the petitioner was called for appearing before the Interview Board. The Committee selected her for being appointed as Asst. Teacher in L. T. grade. Before publishing the advertisement for appointment, the Committee of Management of the College had already communicated to the D.I.O.S. about the existing vacancy to be filled in. After the selection was made by the Selection Committee, list was sent to the DI.O.S. for approval vide letter dated 8-12-90. The D.I.O.S. vide letter/order dated 3-7-91 approved the adhoc appointment of the petitioner in L. T. grade till the reversion of Sri Hari Dutt Pandey to the L T. grade. After the receipt of the communication about the selection by the Selection Committee, the D I.O S. had sent number of letters making query about the applications and selection made by the Selection Committee. The letter dated 3-7-91 was sent by the D.I.O.S- after he had fully satisfied himself that selection was made according to due procedure. It was only after the approval was granted by the D.I.O.S. the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner dated 11-7-91 and petitioner joined the Institution on 19-7-91. 2. The letter dated 3-7-91 was sent by the D.I.O.S- after he had fully satisfied himself that selection was made according to due procedure. It was only after the approval was granted by the D.I.O.S. the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner dated 11-7-91 and petitioner joined the Institution on 19-7-91. 2. It appears that a representation was sent by Smt. Meena Gambhir before the Dy. Director of Education for a direction that the approval and selection for the adhoc appointment of the petitioner be cancelled and she be given appointment of L T. grade Asstt. Teachers post. The Dy. Director of Education by letter dated 13th August 1991 called for a report from the D.I.O.S. and be had also directed the D.I OS to recall the approval granted by him and review the matter afresh. The DIOS after reviewing the order approving the petitioner's selection for appointment of adhoc teacher in L.T. grade, cancelled the same At the time of initial admission of the writ petition, a caveat was put in on behalf of Smt. Meena Gambhir through Sri J. C. Joshi, Advocate. The petition was heard by me and it was clear from the record that before passing the order the Dy. Director of Education by which he had directed D.I.O S to reconsider the selection made by the Selection Committee and cancel the selection of the petitioner already made. This order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner The Dy. Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital had considered the representation of Smt Meena Gambhir without giving any opportunity to the petitioner which was patently in violation of the rules of natural justice After arriving to r:he conclusion that the order of Dy. Director of Education was passed in utter violation of the rule of natural justice. I had directed the Dy. Director of Education. Kumaon Region. Nainital to consider the representation of Smt. Meena Gambhir and representation of Km. Renu Pant petitioner and decide by reasoned order within one month from filing certified copy of the order before him after giving due opportunity of hearing to them. After the above direction was given, the Dy. I had directed the Dy. Director of Education. Kumaon Region. Nainital to consider the representation of Smt. Meena Gambhir and representation of Km. Renu Pant petitioner and decide by reasoned order within one month from filing certified copy of the order before him after giving due opportunity of hearing to them. After the above direction was given, the Dy. Director of Education passed a reasoned order dated 20th November 1991 by which the selection of petitioner was said to be wrong and liable to be cancelled and recommended that Smt. Meena Gambhir, Caveator-opposite party be appointed on adhoc basis as Asstt. Teacher in LT grade. The copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure 3 with the: supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. 3. After the order of the Dy Director of Education was received, the petitioner submitted the supplementary affidavit and an application for amendment in the prayer of the writ petition and added certain new grounds in the writ petition, filed the copies of representations filed by the petitioner and Smt. Meena Gambhir, opposite party also. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and rejoinder affidavit. The petition is ready for final hearing and disposal. The learned counsel for the parties consented that petition may be finally disposed of. The amendment application i led and supplementary affidavit seeking addition of grounds in the petition stands allowed. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the questions for considerations by this Court are as under :- (i) Whether the selection of the petitioner on the post of Asstt. Teacher L.T. grade on adhoc basis which was approved by the D.I.O.S. before appointment could be reviewed legally ? (ii) Whether the Dy. Director of Education was justified in issuing a direction to the D.I.OS. for reviewing the approval granted by him and direct for cancelling approval ? (iii) Whether the D.I.O.S. could review the order passed by him in any circumstances and (iv) Whether the D.I.O.S would interfere in the matter of decision as to the subject for which teacher is required in the School ? A perusal of the order of the Dy. Director of Education shows that there was a post for advertisement for Asstt. Teacher L T. grade (General) which prefers Intermediate Sanskrit B.A. Hindi and History. The other three posts advertised for Asstt. Teacher prescribed preference to B.A. Sanskrit, Geography and M.A. Hindi, B.Sc. A perusal of the order of the Dy. Director of Education shows that there was a post for advertisement for Asstt. Teacher L T. grade (General) which prefers Intermediate Sanskrit B.A. Hindi and History. The other three posts advertised for Asstt. Teacher prescribed preference to B.A. Sanskrit, Geography and M.A. Hindi, B.Sc. Math, B.Sc. Zeology. The aforesaid three posts are not under consideration nor petitioner or opposite party are interested for it nor had applied for it. The Dy. Director of Education mentioned in his order that [petitioner Km. Renu Pant passed her High School Examination in Ilnd Division, Intermediate in Ilnd Division with Hindi, Home Science, History, Sanskrit, Civics, B.A. Ilnd division with Literary Hindi, General Hindi, History and Sanskrit. M.A. Ilnd division History, M.A. Ilnd division, Sanskrit, M.A. Ilnd division Hindi, B.Ed. 3-2 division. 5. So far opposite party Smt. Meena Gambhir is concerned, she passed her High School in 1st Division, Intermediate Hindi, Sanskrit, Home Science, Sociology, B.A. in Hindi Literary, Sanskrit, Sociology, General Hindi, B A. IInd-1. 6. The Dy. Director of Education preferred the respondent Smt. Meena Gambhir as she possessed better educational qualifications and her quality mark was double the quality marks of the petitioner. The Dy. Director of Education was of the opinion that since there was no subject of history for which teacher was appointed in the school, nor there was any subject of History being taught in the school. There was no necessity for giving preference to a teacher having history as a subject in B.A. . It is clear that petitioner was selected by the Selection) Committee as she possessed all the subjects prescribed as preferential qualification for appointment and History was one amongst them, whereas Smt. Meena Gambhir lagged preferential subject of History and she was not preferred in the selection process. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was made under U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) II Order, 1976. It is submitted that Clause 2 (3) (iii) the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education (Service Commission Removal of Difficulties) Ilnd Order, 1981 is mandatory. It is submitted that once Management has communicated the decision for approval to the D.I.O.S. he shall communicate his decision within 7 days, otherwise he shall be deemed to have given his approval. It is submitted that Clause 2 (3) (iii) the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education (Service Commission Removal of Difficulties) Ilnd Order, 1981 is mandatory. It is submitted that once Management has communicated the decision for approval to the D.I.O.S. he shall communicate his decision within 7 days, otherwise he shall be deemed to have given his approval. It is submitted that the communication about the vacancy for the post of Asstt. Teacher in the institution was admittedly communicated and after the said communication, an advertisement in the news paper was published inviting application for the short term appointment, interview was held, report and recommendations of the Selection Committee was sent to the D.I.O.S. for his approval The recommendation was sent on 12-11-90 The D.I.O.S. after due consideration and exchange of correspondence in the same matter, sent latter of approval dated 3-7-91 and thereafter the appointment latter was issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Sehsar Pal Singh v. State of U. P., 1991 ACJ 520, where another case Sukhinandan v. D.I.O S., 1991 ACJ 125, was relied by the learned Single Judge. It was held that after communication of the selection to the D.I.O.S. it was mandatory for the D.I.O.S. to communicate bis decision within 7 days, otherwise approval shall be deemed. The submission is that the approval of the petitioner's selection and appointment should be deemed also in view or" aforementioned provisions as the D.I.O S after receiving the communication on 12-11-90 had not rejected the recommendation for appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner's selection should have been deemed in law to be approved. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in saying that as the D.I.O.S. was making queries be exchange of latters to the Committee of Management, he had not finally passed the orders of approval and the matter was under his consideration. The provision of deemed approval when no response is made by the D.I O.S would be available. The moment the D.I O.S. sent correspondence and makes queries in the matter of approval, it would show that the D.I.O.S. was not satisfied at that moment and was making query about the same. In such circumstances, the deeming provisions would not be available. The question most relevant for consideration is whether the Dy. The moment the D.I O.S. sent correspondence and makes queries in the matter of approval, it would show that the D.I.O.S. was not satisfied at that moment and was making query about the same. In such circumstances, the deeming provisions would not be available. The question most relevant for consideration is whether the Dy. Director of Education was competent in reopening the matter of approval at the instance of respondent Smt. Meena Gambhir. It is clear from the U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order II, 1976 that there is no provision for any appeal or revision in the matter of grant of approval, under the said order to the Dy. Director of Education. The Dy. Director of Education is neither an appellate authority nor an authority to interfere is such matter. It is abundantly clearly that II Removal of Difficulties Order was issued only to meet short term appointment for Educational Institution Since it was a short term, an adhoc arrangement the II Removal of Difficulties Order do not provide for any appeal. It is an authority vested with power to take a decision in a particular matter about the interpretation of rules etc. otherwise it would not open to the higher authorities to undo the action merely on the ground that he differs with the opinion or discretion. The D.I.OS. was supposed to accord approval for the short term appointment if he was satisfied that the person selected possessed necessary qualifications with preference as desired. The D.I.O S. preferred the petitioner on the ground that petitioner possessed Hindi, Sanskrit and History also as one of her subjects in B. A. which were required as a preferential qualifications. The Dy. Director of Education was of the view that since there is no subject approved in the Institution for teaching History, there was no necessity far giving preference to a candidate having preferential subject History as one of the subjects in B. A No doubt, there is no such approved teaching subject as History, but the Committee of Management considered a subject History as preferential subject for benefit of students in the Institution and as such said subject was mentioned as a preferential subject for appointment. It was for the Management consider which subject teacher they require. It was for the Management consider which subject teacher they require. It was not for the Dy Director of Education to thrust his own views., In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited, B. P. Tripathi v. State of U. P. 1985 U. P. L B. 669 I have carefully perused the decision cited. I am of the opinion that this Authority is of not such help to the petitioner. In the said case it was considered to give promotion to a teacher under Chapter II Regulation 6-1 and 6. 5, An approved teacher was there. It was the discretion of the Management to decide as to for which post the teacher is to be promoted for filling a vacancy. This was not a case of providing preference of a subject for a fresh appointment of the teacher. 7. The question for consideration is whether the Dy. Director of Education could intervene in the matter after the concurrence has already given appointment made at the instance of respondent Smt. Meena Gambhir. As already stated the Dy. Director of Education is not the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a certified copy of a judgment in W. P. No 3465 of 1978 B. N. Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others decided on 24-8-79, by Hon K. N. Singh, J. (as he then was) and Hon. B. D. Agarwal, J. The passage referred from the said judgment is quoted as under : "In this contest we would like to observe that if different opinions are possible and the appropriate authority acts in a manner which is possible on the interpretation of the rule, then it; would not be open to the higher authorities to undo the action merely on the basis of different opinion." The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the initial satisfaction of the D.I O.S. to approve the selection which was done according to law and it has not been pointed out or shown that there was any fraud or deception played by the petitioner which may vitiate the order of the D I.O.S. He further submits that since the Dy. Director of Education is not the appellate authority, he could not undo what was done by the D.I.O.S. and the D.I O.S has no power to review the order granting approval. 8. Director of Education is not the appellate authority, he could not undo what was done by the D.I.O.S. and the D.I O.S has no power to review the order granting approval. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited, Jaswant Singh v. D.I.O.S.. 1980 UP LB EC 43 (DB), Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College Manikpur v. Dy Director of Education, 1981 UP LB and EC 174 (DB); 1985 UP LB EC 629. THEse cases are unanimous on the point that there is no provision in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act or regulations framed thereunder giving power of review to the D.I.O S. The review of order is permissible only when the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or by mistake or law makes such a provision. The submission is that it has not been shown by the respondents that the petitioner obtained the order of approval from the D.I.O.S. by fraud, deception or any mistake of fact. Thus, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that the order passed by the Dy. Director of Education earlier at the instance of respondent Smt. Meena Gambhir was passed by him exceeding the jurisdiction vested in him. The Dy, Director of Education has no legal authority to reexamine the order of the D.I.O.S. as an appellate authority. The District Inspector of School arrived at a conclusion on the basis of advertisement published applying preferential qualification necessary and on merit gave the preference to the petitioner and accorded approval. This was an interim ad hoc arrangement made for the time being so that immediate vacancy on account of short term promotion may be filled in and students may not suffer for want of teacher. The petitioner took over since 12-11-90 and has been regularly teaching without any complaint. It is wholly immaterial that respondents.' has four Ist class and she may be called as a better qualified having more quality point marks. Since he lagged the preferential qualification of History, the Management and the Selection Committee preferred the petitioner having History as one of her subjects. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the contesting opposite party is definitely a superior candidate having four 1st class with a brilliant record should have been given opportunity for teaching and the D.I O. S was wrong in initially selecting the petitioner. The Dy. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the contesting opposite party is definitely a superior candidate having four 1st class with a brilliant record should have been given opportunity for teaching and the D.I O. S was wrong in initially selecting the petitioner. The Dy. Director of Education has considered the matter on the representation moved by Smt. Meena Gambhir and the order of approval by the D.I.O S. was ordered to be reconsidered. He submitted that initially lacuna pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Dy. Director of Education was passed without opportunity to the petitioner behind her back and violated rule of natural justice now stands cured. He submitted that after this Honourable Court directed the Dy. Director of Education to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner and respondent Committee of Management, it cannot bo said that there was violation of principle of natural justice. The learned counsel may be correct in certain extent that the major defect of violation of rule of natural justice now stands cured, still this Court has to examine the correctness and legality of the order passed by him. As already observed in the earlier part of the judgment that the Dy. Director of Education is not the appellate authority, the D .I.O S. had passed the order after scrutinising the facts and circumstances of the case and took several months in arriving at decision for approval to the petitioner's selection. The intention of law is also abundantly clear that such short term vacancies are to be filled in without much delay and procedural technicalities. That is the reason, no appeal has been provided in II Removal of Difficulties Order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Dy. Director of Education exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing direction to the District Inspector of Schools for reviewing the order of approval. The order dated 1-10-91 Annexure 5 to the writ petition by the District Inspector of Schools and order dated 20th November 1991 passed by the Dy. Director of Education exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing direction to the District Inspector of Schools for reviewing the order of approval. The order dated 1-10-91 Annexure 5 to the writ petition by the District Inspector of Schools and order dated 20th November 1991 passed by the Dy. Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner are quashed and the order of approval dated 3-7-91 and appointment latter dated 11-7-91, Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition, shall remain in operation till regular selection to the post is made or the original incumbent of the post resumes the post. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear costs. Petition allowed.