S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this petition centers round the order of the District Inspectors of Schools embodied in his communication dated 28. 6. 2000 (Annexure-4) addressed to the Manager. Adarsh Kanya Inter College. Jaunpur, containing direction to the latter to submit proposal for the ad-hoc appointment of the respondent Smt. Sushma Chaturvedi as officiating Principal of the institution together with relevant papers having bearing on the appointment and seniority of all teachers in the Institution by 30th June. 2000. The communication dated 30. 6. 2000 of the Joint director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, addressed to the Manager of the Institution directing the latter to enforce compliance to the directions contained in the letter aforestated of the District Inspector of Schools, of assigning charge of Principal to Smt. Sushma Chaturvedi under intimation to himself and the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. ( 2 ) IT would transpire from the order contained in the communication dated 28. 6. 2000 that the seniormost teacher Smt. Urmila Srivastava had declined to be saddled with the responsibility of officiating Principal of the Institution and the next seniormost teacher namely, Swatantra Kumar maurya being a C. T. grade Asstt. Teacher, was not qualified to be appointed as ad hoc Principal and the 5th respondent Smt. Sushma Chaturvedi being the 3rd in order of seniority, was qualified to be assigned the charge of officiating Principal of the Institution. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition, it has been articulated that the petitioner did not decline being assigned the charge of officiating Principal and the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools proceeds on erroneous assumption that the petitioner declined the offer of her being appointed as officiating Principal of the Institution. The order impugned herein has been assailed basically on the premise of the same having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. In the counter-affidavit filed by Smt. Sushma Chaturvedi, the letter dated 25. 5. 2000 has been annexed as Annexure-C. A. 1 in which the petitioner expressed her unwillingness to take over charge of the Principal owing to some unavoidable circumstances. The contents of the letter are admitted to the petitioner but her precise case is that the letter was undated and written on an earlier occasion and the date "25. 5. 5. 2000 has been annexed as Annexure-C. A. 1 in which the petitioner expressed her unwillingness to take over charge of the Principal owing to some unavoidable circumstances. The contents of the letter are admitted to the petitioner but her precise case is that the letter was undated and written on an earlier occasion and the date "25. 5. 2000" has been interpolated for the letter being utilised as a pretence to make room for the 5th respondent who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. ( 4 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner being the seniormost teacher, was entitled to be appointed as officiating/ad-hoc Principal of the Institution and the District Inspector of Schools was not justified to assume without giving notice to the petitioner that she declined to accept the appointment as officiating Principal of the Institution. Sri Ganga Prasad. learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Smt. Sushma chaturvedi, submitted that the letter Annexure-C. A. 1 was admittedly written by the petitioner and in the fact-situation of the case, therefore, it was not necessary to afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by Sri Ganga Prasad that if once the seniormost teacher declines to accept the charge of officiating/ad-hoc Principal, he or she as the case may be. cannot later on assert his/her claim of being appointed as Principal on the basis of seniority. In the above context, reliance has been placed on a decision-Sarya Vir Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr and others, 1995 AWC 122, and also on decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 141 of 1993, Smt. Sudesh Kakkar v. Regional Inspectress of girls Schools, Ist Region, Meerut and others, the quintessence of what has been held therein is that once a seniormost teacher declines offer to function as officiating Principal, she cannot claim the right subsequently to be appointed as officiating Principal of the Institution. ( 5 ) THE fact that the letter (Annexure-CA 1) declining to assume charge of Principal was written by the petitioner herself brooks no dispute. The limited question that is in dispute is that the letter was written on an earlier occasion and not in relation to the substantive vacancy that occurred on 30. 6. 2000 as a sequel to the retirement of the permanent incumbent. The limited question that is in dispute is that the letter was written on an earlier occasion and not in relation to the substantive vacancy that occurred on 30. 6. 2000 as a sequel to the retirement of the permanent incumbent. This question, in my opinion, is a question of fact, which can more appropriately be vetted and decided by the district Inspector of Schools on being approached by means of a representation. It is axiomatic that every authority has power to recall its order, if it is found to have been induced by fraud or misrepresentation. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, JT 2000 (3)SC 151, the Apex Court has held that every Court or Tribunal is empowered to recall its order if such order is found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The said principle, in my opinion, can be imported for application to a situation like the one in the present case even if the order sought to be quashed, has been passed by an Administrative Authority, namely, the district inspector of Schools. In the circumstances, therefore, if the petitioner prefers a representation and brings home the point before the District Inspector of Schools that the letter (Annexure-CA 1) was written and intended for an occasion other than the one in relation to permanent vacancy which has occurred on 30. 6. 2000, in that event, the District Inspector of schools, will be well within his competence to recall his order of course after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management and the 5th respondent. In a situation of the ilk, it cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools is bereft of the power to recall his order. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is disposed of with the direction that in case, the petitioner files a representation, the District Inspector of Schools will afford an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties including the Committee of Management, go over the controversy and decide the representation assigning reason for his conclusion on the question as to whether the petitioner declined the offer of being appointed as officiating Principal of the Institution as alleged by the contesting respondent or whether she had not. as alleged by her and pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper in the light of the finding on the controversial issue aforestated. .