SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri S.R. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
(2.) Petitioner is the Committee of Management. The respondent no.3 is the Officiating Principal. By order dated 26.11.2018, the respondent no.3 was suspended by the petitioner. By order dated 27.03.2019, the District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, refused to accord approval to the suspension of the respondent no.3. Aggrieved with that order the petitioner filed Writ - A No.5114 of 2019 (C/M Kishan Lal Ram Kumar Junior High School, Bareilly Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). By order dated 09.05.2019, passed in that writ petition, this Court quashed the order of disapproval dated 27.03.2019, solely on the ground that since the petitioners' institution has been upgraded to the High School level, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools shall have the jurisdiction to pass orders and not the District Basic Education Officer in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Manju Awasthi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ESC 844. The court further observed in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Chandra Bhushan Misra Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460 that even after expiry of sixty days, though the order of suspension becomes ineffective but it continues to exist, meaning thereby that if the order of suspension is approved even after expiry of sixty days, it will revive once again and will become effective.
(3.) The aforesaid Writ A No.5114 of 2019 was allowed by order dated 9.5.2019 observing as under:- "As sixty days have already expired since the passing of the suspension order and there is no approval to it by the District Inspector of Schools, it has been rendered ineffective. However, it would not divest the District Inspector of Schools of his power to accord consideration to the same. Consequently, respondent no.2 is directed to accord consideration to the decision of the Management for keeping the fourth respondent under suspension within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order alongwith fresh representation. Before taking any decision in the matter, the District Inspector of Schools shall accord opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the fourth respondent. All pleas and contentions on merits are left open to be raised by the parties before respondent no.2. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above." ;