JUDGMENT
Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.
1. We have heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari for respondent no.2 Though the case has been called upon in the revised list, but none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 11th October, 1990 passed by respondent no. 1, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Head of Department, Sahitya, in Bathwal Sanskrit Meha Vidyalaya, Gola district Gorakhpur, hereinafter referred to as ‘College’, in the year 1981. The said College was affiliated with Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The Manager, committee of management of the College alleged that the petitioner has resigned from the post on 12th May, 1984 and forwarded the same for approval of Vice Chancellor, who approved the same on 16th September, 1984. The petitioner on coming to know that in a surreptitious and corrupt manner his resignation was manufactured and approval of Vice Chancellor was also obtained, made a complaint to the Vice Chancellor was also obtained, made a complaint to the Vice Chancellor explaining all these facts and thereafter filed writ petition no. 4968 of 1986 before this Court. It was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 21th May, 1988 with the following direction:
Dispute in this petition is if the petitioner tendered his resignation. Admittedly it was approved by Vice Chancellor, but according to the petitioner this was a forged resignation, therefore, immediately after coming to know of it he made representations to the Vice Chancellor. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit whether resignation was genuine or not can effectively be decided by the authority, viz Vice Chancellor, which is entitled to afford an opportunity and consider the same on materials on record. In these circumstances without entering into merits of the mater, we consider it expedient to direct the Vice Chancellor to decide the representation of petitioner after affording opportunity which is pending for more than three years, within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the Vice Chancellor considered the mater and vide its order dated 5th October, 1938 held that the aforesaid resignation of the petitioner was doubtful and fraudulent, the approval was also obtained without disclosing correct facts and consequently it recalled its order of approval and cancelled order dated 17th September, 1984 whereby the petitioner was terminated pursuant to the aforesaid resignation. The order of appointment of one Vishwa Prakash Mishra, son of Principal of the College in the resultant vacancy of the petitioner was also recalled. Sri Vishwa Prakash Mishra, it appears filed writ petition No. 21965 of 1988 before this Court, but got it dismissed as not pressed on 2nd November, 1988. However, in the meantime, it appears that he (Vishwa Prakash Mishra) preferred a representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1973 Act’), which has been allowed by the Chancellor interalia on the ground that the Vice Chancellor once having approved resignation of the petitioner and’ also appointment of Vishwa Prakash Mishra had no power or to review its own order and accordingly it has revoked the order dated 5th October, 1988 passed by the Vice Chancellor.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Vice Chancellor did not exercise any inherent or suo-moto power of review, but he considered the matter in the light of the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No. 4968 of 1986, hence the Chancellor erred in law in treating the order of the Vice Chancellor being a suo-moto exercise of power of review.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and peruse the record, in. our view the Chancellor has committed a patent error of law apparent on the face of record by treating the order dated 5th October, 1988 passed by the Vice Chancellor as an order of review of his earlier order and holding it illegal for the reason that the Vice Chancellor had considered the matter pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in writ petition No. 4968 of 1986, decided on 21st May, 1988. Therefore it could not have been said that the Vice Chancellor had no power to reconsider the matter, particularly when he was exercising power under judicial order. Moreover, it is admitted at the Bar that an order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation can always be reviewed by the concerned authority oven if there is no express power of review available in the Statute since fraud vitiates everything. We are also of the view that Chancellor also erred in law by placing reliance on the Apex Court judgement in Dr. Smt. Kutesh Shukla v. H.K. Mahavidyalaya 1988 A.W.C., 347, inasmuch as, therein the order of dismissal of Principal approved by the Vice Chancellor was reviewed in absence of any allegation or fraud or misrepresentation. The Apex Court held that the order of approval in respect of dismissal of a Principal is a quasi judicial power and such an order cannot be reviewed in the absence of any power of review conferred in the Statute. However, here the Vice Chancellor had approved the alleged resignation of the petitioner. There was no question of exercise of quasi judicial power. It was a pure and simple administrative power. If such an administrative power has been exercised, the same could also have been reviewed at any point of time when such facts are brought to the notice of the competent authority. Therefore in our view, the order of the Chancellor cannot be sustained.
7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Chancellor dated 11th October, 1990, Annexure-‘5’ to the writ petition is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in the light of Vice Chancellor’s order dated 5th October, 1988. No costs.