Yasoda Nandan, J. - (1.) By an order dated 18th November. 1980 the Authorised Controller directed the petitioner who happens to be the Principal of an Intermediate College to carry out the instructions contained in the order. It was further stated in the order that if no proper explanation is coming forward within three days as to why the petitioner had acted in the fashion disclosed in the order, disciplinary action would be taken against him On the same date the Authorised Control Her passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner from the post of Principal and stated in the order itself that a charge-sheet will be served on him later. Aggrived by the order suspending him from service the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging its legality. Apart from allegation of mala fide the order is challenged on the ground inter alia that the impugned order was passed before the time given to the petitioner for submitting his explanation had expired. The Authorized Controller only exercises such power as the committee of management has under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under sub-section (5) of Section 16-G the Head of an Institution or teacher may be suspended by the management if in its opinion the contingencies contemplated By clauses (a) to (c) to that sub-section exist. Before the charge-sheet could be served on the petitioner he has rushed to this court seeking relief by way of a writ. We have no material before us on the basis of which we can come to the conclusion that the Authorised Controller had acted illegally or suspended the petitioner without regard to the provisions of sub-section (5)(a) to (c) of Section 16 G. Moreover sub-section (7) of Section 16-G provides that "No such order of suspension shall unless approve 1 in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of U. P Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 or, as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court". The order of suspension passed against the Head of Institution or teacher is subject to supervision by the District Inspector of Schools An order ceases to be effective if approval has been accorded to it by the District Inspector of Schools before the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order This makes it clear that the District Inspector or Schools must decide before the expiry of sixty days as to whether the order suspending the Head of an Institution or a teacher should be approved or not This statutory power has been given to the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the management does not act in a high banded fashion suspending the Head of Institution or a teacher. This power has been given to the District Inspector of Schools for the benefit of the teaching community. It is obvious that since the power is vested with the District Inspector of Schools for the benefit of a teacher every teacher adversely effected by an order of suspension has a right to approach the District Inspector of Schools to undo the wrong if any done to him. It is the thus clearly open to the petitioner to approach the District Inspector of Schools, straightaway and to satisfy him that the order of suspension has been passed illegally or mala fide even undeservedly. The petitioner has not exhausted the administrative remedy available to him under the Act. We consequently decline to entertain this petition at this stage. Rejected. A certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within 24 hours. Petition dismissed.;