JUDGMENT : - Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. HEARD Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri V. K. Singh, advocate for the appellant, Dr. R. G. Padia, senior advocate appearing for respondent No. 5 and learned standing counsel. 2. THIS special appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 10th April, 2002 of learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 40150 of 2001 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are ; appellant has been selected by U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for the post of Principal in Budhsen Prem Chandra Inter College, Bulandshahr, where he joined on 22nd February, 1999 and was subsequently confirmed. Gopi Ram Paliwal Inter College, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as college) is a recognised institution where the post of Principal fell vacant on 30th June, 1989, due to retirement of Principal. The requisition of the post of Principal of the college was sent to the Board for filling the post by direct recruitment. The Board published the vacancy of principal of the college on 26th December, 1995 but selection could not take place in pursuance of the said advertisement. Subsequently again the Board published the vacancy which was published in the newspaper "Amar Ujala" on 14th August, 1998. Various persons held the post of principal on ad hoc basis upto 30th June, 2001 when the last incumbent, Sri Devendra Singh, retired. The advertisement made in the year 1998 was challenged by the then ad hoc Principal, Sri B. K. Paliwal, by filing a writ petition in this Court. Devendra Singh who lastly held the post on ad hoc basis has also filed Writ Petition No. 44128 of 1999 challenging the advertisement made in the year 1998 which petition was dismissed by this Court in February, 2001. 3. THE appellant who was working at Bulandshahr made an application for his transfer to the college in February, 2001. THE committee of management of both the colleges also passed resolution showing their concurrence to the proposed transfer. THE application of transfer was made in prescribed proforma in accordance with provisions of Regulations 55 to 61 of Chapter III of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. THE committee of management of both the colleges also passed resolution showing their concurrence to the proposed transfer. THE application of transfer was made in prescribed proforma in accordance with provisions of Regulations 55 to 61 of Chapter III of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. On the said application, an order was passed by Additional Director of Education dated 30th June, 2001, transferring the petitioner from Budhsen Prem Chandra Inter College, Bulandshahr to the college. THE transfer order also contemplated that if it comes into light that concerned principal/regional authorities have obtained transfer by concealment of any fact, then the Directorate will be free to cancel the transfer order. Mahendra Singh who was senior most lecturer of the college filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the said transfer order dated 30th June, 2001 and also filed complaint before the education authorities. After receiving the complaint from Mahendra Singh, the Additional Director of Education called for report. THE District Inspector of Schools and Deputy Director of Education submitted their reports to the Additional Director of Education. THE District Inspector of Schools in his report dated 19.9.2001 stated that requisition for vacant post of Principal was sent in the year 1989 to the Secretary of the Board and the post was advertised by the Board in the year 1995-96. Again the post was advertised by the Board on 14th August, 1998. It was stated that from 1989 to 30th June, 2001, various senior teachers functioned as Principal in pursuance of the interim order granted by the High Court. THE appellant also wrote letter to the District Inspector of Schools praying that no action be taken in the matter with regard to transfer of the appellant. THE District Inspector of Schools also wrote a letter to the manager of the College asking report with regard to complaint made by Mahendra Singh against the transfer dated 30th June, 2001. THE manager submitted a reply to the letter of the District Inspector of Schools. THE Additional Director of Education after receiving the various reports passed the order dated 24th November, 2001, cancelling the order dated 30th June, 2001, transferring the petitioner in the college. THE manager submitted a reply to the letter of the District Inspector of Schools. THE Additional Director of Education after receiving the various reports passed the order dated 24th November, 2001, cancelling the order dated 30th June, 2001, transferring the petitioner in the college. It was stated in the letter that after enquiry, it has come to notice that the said transfer was obtained by concealment of facts, the requisition for the post of Principal of the college was sent to the Board but in the transfer application it was mentioned that no requisition has been sent to the Board. In view of the above, the transfer order was cancelled. THE appellant filed writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 24th November, 2001. THE writ petition has been dismissed by learned single Judge vide its judgment dated 10th April, 2002 against which present special appeal has been filed. 4. SRI R. N. Singh, senior advocate, appearing for the appellant in support of this appeal has raised following submissions : (i) The fact that requisition for the post of Principal was sent to the Board and the post was advertised by the Board was not an impediment in transfer of the appellant and the aforesaid fact was not relevant fact for cancellation of transfer of the appellant. SRI R. N. Singh has placed reliance on three judgments of learned single Judges of this Court for the aforesaid proposition, namely, judgment dated 18th April, 1996 in W. P. No. 12037 of 1996, Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Director of Education and others ; judgment dated 22nd April, 1996 in W.P. No. 14248 of 1996, Darshan Singh v. State of U. P. and others and Narendra Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 2002 (1) ESC 214. (ii) In the transfer application, which was filed seeking transfer, it was not the appellant who concealed any fact and even if any fact was concealed, it was by the management for which appellant cannot be held guilty. Further there was no concealment in Column 19 of the transfer application. (iii) Even though appellant was not entitled for oral hearing before the authorities, he was entitled for notice and opportunity before cancelling his transfer. The counsel contended that appellant's submission was not to the effect that he was entitled for oral hearing. Dr. Further there was no concealment in Column 19 of the transfer application. (iii) Even though appellant was not entitled for oral hearing before the authorities, he was entitled for notice and opportunity before cancelling his transfer. The counsel contended that appellant's submission was not to the effect that he was entitled for oral hearing. Dr. R. G. Padia, senior advocate appearing for respondent No. 5 contended that transfer order dated 30th June, 2001, having been obtained by concealment of facts, the same was rightly cancelled by Additional Director of Education. Dr. Padia submitted that since the order of cancellation was passed on the information submitted by appellant himself, hence there was no occasion to give any opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the order of cancellation. It was contended that there was clear concealment of fact in the transfer application which was duty signed by the appellant himself and the appellant cannot be heard in saying that he never concealed a fact. In the facts of the present case, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the appellant. 5. THE first and second submissions being interrelated, are being considered together. THE submission of Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate is that transfer of a Principal is fully permissible even if post of Principal has been advertised by the Board and for this submission, he has placed reliance on three judgments of this Court as referred above. Sri R. N. Singh very fairly stated that judgment of this Court in Narendra Kumar's case (supra) has been referred to larger Bench by another Hon'ble single Judge of this Court which is pending consideration. From the submissions made before the learned single Judge in the writ petition, it appears that counsel for respondents proceeded with the assumption that even though advertisement of vacancy by the Board may not be an impediment in filling the post by transfer but transfer can be cancelled if it was obtained by concealment of fact. Thus, it appears that submission raised by counsel for the appellant in this appeal that transfer is permissible even if post has been advertised by the Board has not been seriously challenged. In view of this, we are not inclined to enter into or decide the question as to whether advertisement of vacancy by the Board puts any fetter on filling of the of post by transfer. In view of this, we are not inclined to enter into or decide the question as to whether advertisement of vacancy by the Board puts any fetter on filling of the of post by transfer. Further, this appeal can be decided on other questions involved in the appeal. Now the submission of counsel for the appellant that information regarding requisition of vacancy to the Commission was not relevant fact nor its non-disclosure in the transfer application will have any effect and the order of cancellation founded on this ground cannot be sustained is to be examined. THE transfer order dated 30th June, 2001, contains a clear stipulation to the effect, ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Copy of the transfer application is on the record as Annexure-C.A. 7 to the counter-affidavit of Mahendra Singh. THE transfer application is in prescribed proforma, which contain various columns requiring giving of various details for purposes of considering the application of transfer. THE various columns of the transfer application solicit various kind of information for purposes of effectively considering the transfer application. THE provisions of Section 16 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982, provides as under : "16. Appointment to be made only on the recommendation of the Board.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder but subject to the provisions of Sections 21B, 21C, 21D, 33, 33A and 33B every appointment of a teacher, shall on or after the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service (Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board : Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the provisions of Section 16 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall mutatis mutandis apply : Provided further that the appointment of a teacher by transfer from one Institution to another may be made in accordance with the regulations made under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. (2) Any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void." 6. THE second proviso to Section 16 only provides that appointment of a teacher by transfer from one institution to another may be made in accordance with regulations made under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16G of U. P. Intermediate Education Act. (2) Any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void." 6. THE second proviso to Section 16 only provides that appointment of a teacher by transfer from one institution to another may be made in accordance with regulations made under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16G of U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulations 55 to 61 are the regulations framed under Section 16G dealing with transfer. Provisions of Section 16 as well as Regulations 55 to 61 only provide that post can be filled up by transfer. Provisions of Section 16 as well as aforesaid regulations do not given any right in a teacher to claim transfer except that he can apply for transfer. Transfer can be sought by a teacher in accordance with regulation but the said transfer can be effected only on recommendation of committee referred in Regulation 59. Regulations 55 to 61 do not expressly provide the criteria on which transfer application is to be considered except certain grounds in which transfer cannot be made. For example, Regulation 61 sub-clause (2) provides that transfer is permissible to only from one aided institution to another aided institution and from one unaided institution to another unaided institution. If a teacher gives an application for transfer from one unaided institution to an aided institution, the application is liable to be rejected. Further Regulation 55 provides that L.T. grade teacher can be transferred in the region whereas lecturer and Principal can be transferred even outside the region. THE various columns in prescribed proforma of transfer seek required information for effectively considering the application of transfer of a teacher. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 5, two letters of Secretary of the Board have been enclosed as Annexure-C.As. 3 and 4. Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit is letter dated 26th June, 1999 of Secretary of the Board to Additional Director of Education, Directorate at Allahabad which states that Secretary has been directed to state that no objection from Selection Board be obtained before effecting proceeding of transfer with regard to those posts of Principal which have been advertised by the Board. Another letter Annexure-C.A. 4 to the counter-affidavit is letter dated 30th April, 2001 of Secretary of the Board which is again on the same subject regarding obtaining of no objection certificate regarding post of Principal, lecturer and L.T. grade teachers. Another letter Annexure-C.A. 4 to the counter-affidavit is letter dated 30th April, 2001 of Secretary of the Board which is again on the same subject regarding obtaining of no objection certificate regarding post of Principal, lecturer and L.T. grade teachers. THE letter states that as far as possible after sending requisition for a post, transfer be not made and the if any unavoidable circumstances, transfer is to be made, then permission of Board be taken. THE Secretary of the Board having informed the Additional Director of Education by the aforesaid letter seeking no objection, it appears that the column in the transfer application to the effect that as to whether the requisition of the post has been sent to the selection board is in accordance with the aforesaid letter. In view of the above, it cannot be said that column No. 19 in the transfer application which requires an information as to whether the requisition has been sent to the Commission is not a relevant information. As observed above, we have not entered into and are not deciding the question as to whether after requisition, the transfer can be made or not made since in this appeal, the counsel for respondents has proceeded on the premises that transfer can be made even after sending of the requisition and advertisement of the vacancy. Thus the column No. 19 cannot be said to be irrelevant for considering the claim of transfer of a teacher. Now looking to Column Nos. 18 and 19 of t?e transfer application, it is not disputed that against the said columns, it was mentioned that requisition has not been sent. Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate tried to explain the aforesaid column No. 19 by saying that since the management was under impression that vacancy has arisen on 30th June, 2001 by retirement of ad hoc Principal and since thereafter no requisition was sent, the said information was given by the manager. When particular informations are solicited in a prescribed proforma, it is presumed that only correct and truthful information are to be sent. If correct informations are not sent, the consideration of an issue on the basis of incorrect information is likely to be vitiated. When particular informations are solicited in a prescribed proforma, it is presumed that only correct and truthful information are to be sent. If correct informations are not sent, the consideration of an issue on the basis of incorrect information is likely to be vitiated. It is not disputed that Sri Devendra Singh who retired on 30th June, 2001 was only an ad hoc Principal and by retirement of ad hoc Principal, the substantive vacancy do not arise. THE U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Service Boards Rules, 1998, Section 2 (e) defines vacancy as follows : "2 (e) Vacancy means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement regarding dismissal or removal of a teacher or creation of new post or appointment or promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity." Vacancy thus will arise only when a teacher holding the post in substantive capacity retires. In the present case, it has not been disputed that substantive vacancy arose on the post of Principal in the year 1989, thus the relevant column which required the reason of vacancy and the date meant cause of vacancy and the date. Thus, information in column No. 18 which pertain to cause and date of vacancy against which 30th June, 2001, was filled and information in column No. 19 were incorrect. There is no denial that the said prescribed proforma has been signed by the appellant, Prem Pal Singh on 14.2.2001. According to Regulation 55, the process of transfer starts by making application by a teacher. Application will initiate only through the teacher concerned. Thus, all informations which are given in the application has to be basically imputed to the teacher concerned. There is no force in the submission of counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid informations were given by the management for which appellant cannot be held responsible. Under Regulation 55, it is the teacher concerned who can seek transfer, hence all the information is to be imputed to the teacher concerned and he is responsible for the same. We have found that there was concealment of information regarding date of the vacancy and the concealment of fact that requisition was already sent of the vacancy of the post of Principal in the transfer application, which were facts relevant for consideration of transfer. We have found that there was concealment of information regarding date of the vacancy and the concealment of fact that requisition was already sent of the vacancy of the post of Principal in the transfer application, which were facts relevant for consideration of transfer. We have already noted that transfer order dated 30th June, 2001, clearly stipulated that if any information given in the transfer application is found to be incorrect, the directorate is free to cancel the said transfer. In view of the aforesaid, the authorities were fully entitled to invoke the aforesaid clause in the transfer order and cancel the transfer order when they found that relevant informations were concealed in the transfer application. 7. THE question as to on what ground an administrative order can be cancelled has engaged attention of this Court and Apex Court in several cases. THE order approving the transfer of the appellant is an administrative order passed in exercise of jurisdiction given to competent authority under Section 16 of U. P. Act No. V of 1982 as well as Regulations 55 to 61 of Chapter III of Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. THE Apex Court had occasion to consider the question as to on what ground permission granted under Section 15 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, can be cancelled. THE Apex Court in State of U. P. and others v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, etc., AIR 1989 SC 997 , held in paragraph 23B as under : "23B. Indeed, the submissions of Sri Thakur on the point jontemplate the exercise of the power to cancel or revoke the permission in three distinct situations. THE first is where the grant is itself vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the grantee at the time of obtaining the grant. To the second situation belong the class of cases where the grantee, after the grant, violates the essential terms and conditions subject to which the grant is made. In these two areas, the power to grant must be held to include the power to revoke or cancel the permit, even in the absence of any other express statutory provisions in that behalf." THE cancellation of administrative order, which was passed on concealment of relevant facts, has always been conceded to with the authority. In these two areas, the power to grant must be held to include the power to revoke or cancel the permit, even in the absence of any other express statutory provisions in that behalf." THE cancellation of administrative order, which was passed on concealment of relevant facts, has always been conceded to with the authority. Furthermore, in the present case in the order dated 30th June, 2001, there was clear stipulation that in the event of any fact being found to be incorrect, the authorities have right to cancel the order. 8. FROM the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the information regarding requisition of vacancy to the Board was relevant information, which was concealed in the transfer application. No error was committed by the authorities in cancelling the said transfer on the aforesaid ground. The transfer order itself reserved the right with the authorities to cancel the same if it was obtained by concealment of any fact. Thus, we do not find any error in the order cancelling the transfer. Learned single Judge in his judgment has found that it was a clear case of giving incorrect information. We are of the considered opinion that learned single Judge rightly decided the issues and no error was committed by the learned single Judge in holding that correct information was concealed by the petitioner (appellant). The last submission of the counsel for the appellant is with regard to violation of principle of natural justice. The counsel for the appellant contended that even though oral hearing was not required but the petitioner (appellant) was entitled for notice before cancellation. From the facts brought on the record of the writ petition, it appears that after filing of the complaint by respondent No. 5 reports were called by Additional Director of Education from the education authorities. The District Inspector of Schools has also called for report from the management of the college to which management has also replied. The appellant was also fully aware of the complaint and the enquiry which was going on in the aforesaid complaint. This fact is proved from the letter of the appellant himself dated 8th September, 2001, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-C.A. 11 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 5. The appellant wrote to the District Inspector of Schools on 8th September, 2001. This fact is proved from the letter of the appellant himself dated 8th September, 2001, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-C.A. 11 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 5. The appellant wrote to the District Inspector of Schools on 8th September, 2001. The aforesaid letter also takes notice of the fact that respondent No. 5 has sent complaint dated 17th August, 2001 to the Additional Director of Education. In the letter, the appellant also refuted the grounds mentioned in the complaint of Mahendra Singh and has stated that his transfer has been made after following the procedure prescribed. The appellant was, thus, aware of the enquiry and has also made his protest by the aforesaid letter. However, in view of the fact that the power of cancellation of transfer was exercised by the Additional Director of Education on the basis of stipulation reserved in the transfer order dated 30th June, 2001, that if any fact is found incorrect the transfer may be cancelled and further the Additional Director of Education has not taken into consideration any other material apart from information given by petitioner in the transfer application, we are not persuaded to accept that there was any violation of principle of natural justice in passing the cancellation order. The action was being taken on the basis of information submitted by the appellant in the transfer application which was found to be untrue. Before the learned single Judge or before us, the appellant has failed to prove that information given in the transfer application in column Nos. 18 and 19 were correct information. The observance of principles of natural justice vary from fact situation of each case. Thus, we are of the view that order dated 24th November, 2001, is not vitiated on account of the aforesaid submission. 9. IN view of what has been said above, we do not find any substance in any of the submissions of counsel for the appellant. No error has been committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 10. THIS special appeal has no merit and is dismissed.