R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE suspension of Respondent No. 3 by the Committee of Management was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura (here -in -after referred to the DIOS) However, subsequently the order of approval was revoked by the DIOS against which the Appellants filed a writ petition before this Court, primarily on the ground that the order for revocation of suspension has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard. This writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 13 -1 -1992. The learned Single Judge directed the DIOS to decide the question of revocation of approval of suspension afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and in that connection the parties were directed to appear before the DIOS on 20 -1 -1992 on which date the DIOS was to fix another date but not more than ten days later for deciding the question afresh.
(2.) THE Appellants thereafter moved an application before the learned Single Judge for clarification/modification of the judgment dated 13 -1 -1992 for direction to the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra to refer the matter to another authority instead of the DIOS. That application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 28 -1 -1992. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13 -1 -1992 and the order dated 28 -1 -1992. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The judgment dated 13 -1 -1992 is in favour of the Appellants and as such, it is not open to them to challenge it by means of this appeal. The appeal as such, is not maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants has however, argued that in view of the judgment dated 13 -1 -1992 the same DIOS will decide the controversy afresh although they have made allegations of malafide against him, and as such, that part of the judgment dated 13 -1 -1992 be modified/set aside where by the DIOS has been directed to decide the dispute again and another authority be directed to decide this dispute. The submission of the learned Counsel lacks merit. Under Section 16 -G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act only authority which can deal with the matter of approval of suspension of a teacher is the DIOS and as such, direction has to go to DIOS to decide the question of approval of suspension or its revocation. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was perfectly justified in directing the DIOS to decide the matter again. We also agree with the learned Single Judge that if the Appellants have any grievance against the concerned DIOS they should approach the State Government under Section 2(bb) of the U.P. - -Intermediate Education Act for appropriate relief. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge.;