V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the present case petitioner has been performing and discharging duties as Teacher. Institution in question is governed by the provision as contained under U.P. Act No. II of 1921. In the institution concerned petitioner has been sought to be placed under suspension vide order dated 11.02.2009 by the Manager Sarvodya Inter College Kishanpur Fatehpur. Questioning the validity of the aforesaid order present writ petition in question has been filed and then it was pointed out that order passed by Managing Committee of the institution qua suspension, has been approved by District Inspector of Schools in exercise of its authority vested under Section 16 -G(5) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 then by means of amendment application said order in question has been subject matter of challenge Amendment has been allowed and averments mentioned therein from part of the pleadings.
(2.) PLEADINGS inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, contended with vehemence that in the present case District Inspector of Schools has transgressed its authority vested under Section 16 -G (7) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, by recording finding that case for approval has been made out without looking in to the papers submitted by the Committee of Management of the institution under Regulation 39 of Chapter III of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, and without adverting to the issues raised by petitioner, as such order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) COUNTERING the said submission, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, Advocate on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken into the matter and no interference should be made by this Court.;