JUDGMENT
Yatindra Singh, J.
1. The question involved in this writ petition is, if the Additional Director of Education. In the circumstances of the case, has power to review the order passed by the Joint Director of Education or not? Here are the facts.
FACTS
2. The petitioner was born on 1.7.1940. He is a teacher in the Girdhari Inter College. Sirsaganj. Firozabad [the College for short). He has completed 58 years of age on 30.6.1998 and should have retired on that date, if he had given option to retire at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, he had given option to retire at the age of 60 years and he continued in service. On 17.9.1998, the Manager of the college
issued a letter stating that there are cuttings in the option given by the petitioner and in fact the option given by the petitioner is to retire at 58 years of age and not 60 years. He should have retired on 30.6.1998. In view of this, he did not permit the petitioner to teach in the college.
3. The petitioner filed, a representation before, the Joint Director of Education, Agra, on 21.9.1998 stating that he had given the option to retire at the age of 60 years but he is illegally not permitted to teach in the college. The Joint Director of Education, Agra. Issued a notice to the management and the District Inspector of Schools (DIGS) on the representation filed by the petitioner. Sri Darshan Lal Sharma, Principal of the college appeared on behalf of the management. No one appeared on behalf of the D1OS before him. There was cutting in the option form. The Joint Director of Education, Agra, considered, the explanation of the petitioner that initially he had filled up 58 years by mistake and then corrected it to 60 years. This was accepted by the Joint Director of Education. Agra. He by his order dated 12.12.1998 has held that the petitioner has given option to retire at the age of 60 years and is entitled to continue till 30.6.2000.
4. Sri Devendra Sharan Kulshrestha is an Assistant Teacher in the college. He filed a representation before the Additional Director of Education. Allahabad against the order dated 12.12.1998. The Additional Director of Education, Allahabad, by his order dated 5.3.1999 has held that option given by the petitioner was to retire at 58 years and not at the 60 years. In view of the same, the order dated 12.12.1998 was cancelled. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
5. I have heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ashok Bhushan. Sri Rajesh Kumar and standing counsel for Sri Devendra Sharan Kulshreshtha, the committee of
management and the State. Following points arise for determination in this case.
(i) Has the Additional Director of Education, in the circumstances of the case, power to review the order passed by the Joint, Director of Education ?
(ii) Has Sri Devendra Sharan Kulshrestha locus standi to challenge the order of the Joint Director of Education?
1st Point : POWER OF REVIEW
6. The State Government has framed Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahayata Prapt Uchhttar. Madhymik Vidyalaya Ke Adhyapako Ki Mirtyu, Tatha Nivriti Anutoshik Niyamavali (the rules for short). These rules govern the services of a teacher so far as the retirement is concerned. The rules also contemplate submission of an option about the retirement age of a teacher. The Director of Education administers it. The petitioner had submitted his option under Rule 16. One copy of the option is affixed on the service book. Petitioner’s option was also affixed on his service book. There was cutting in it. According to the petitioner, he had given his option to retire at the age of 60 years, but by mistake he had written 58 years, which was corrected to 60 years. Initially the management also treated his option to be of 60 years. It is for this reason that petitioner continued even after 30.6.1998. Later on the management issued a letter dated 17.9.1998 stating that petitioner had given his option to retire at the age of 58 years and should have retired on 30.6.1998. The petitioner filed a representation against this order before the Joint Director of Education. It is not disputed that the Joint Director of Education is a competent authority to deal with such representation. The Joint Director of Education also gave opportunity to the management and the D.I.O.S. He heard Principal of the college on behalf of the management. He also considered the explanation given by the petitioner and after considering the evidence on record, accepted the explanation given by the petitioner. He held that petitioner had
given an option to retire at the age of 60 years. This order was passed by the authority, competent to pass the order, after hearing the persons concerned. The Addl. Director of Education by the impugned order dated 5.3.1999 has reviewed it. The question is. Has he got power to do so?
7. Sri Ashok Bhushan has argued that the entire work is under the supervision of the Director and the Addl. Director was competent to review the order. The order passed by the Joint Director was administrative in nature, but has civil consequences. It is correct to say that every Court or authority has Inherent power to review or modify its own order but only under certain circumstances. It could not be reviewed only on the ground that on the basis of the same evidence some other authority may come to a different conclusion. The order could be reviewed : if the Joint Director was not competent authority to decide it. or if any appeal or revision lay against his order ; or if it could have been reviewed under inherent powers.
8. The Joint Director was competent to pass the order. No appeal or revision lay against his order. He had passed the order after hearing the parties concerned and on the basis of the evidence on record. No fraud was committed in obtaining that order. It could not be reviewed even under inherent powers. Sri Ashok Bhusan has submitted that petitioner has committed forgery in the records. But this is different than obtaining order on the basis of fraud. The forgery was considered by the Joint Director and he had accepted the explanation of the petitioner about cuttings in the record. The Additional Director of Education has come to a different conclusion on the basis of same evidence. This was not permissible under law. The order is liable to be quashed on this ground.
2nd Point : Locus standi
9. The Addl. Director of Education has passed the order dated 5.3.1999 on the application filed by, one Sri Devendra Sharan Kulshrestha. He is a teacher in the college. According to Sri Ashok Bhushan, he has chances of promotion in case the petitioner retires at the age of 58 years- This is too far fetched. He may not have qualification to be promoted. The management may decide not to fill up the post by promotion. Mere chance of promotion does not clothe him with a right to challenge the order. It could be done only by the college or by the State. The order of the Joint Director dated 12.12.1998 could not be reviewed on the representation filed by an assistant teacher in the college.
CONCLUSION
10. Neither Sri Devendra Sharan Kulshrestha, an Assistant Teacher had locus standi to challenge the order of the Joint Director of Education, nor the Addl. Director of Education could review his order. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5.3.1999 passed by Addl. Director of Education, Allahabad. Is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of the quashing of the impugned order.