H.N. Seth, A.C.J. - (1.) PETITIONERS , Committee of Management of Santosh Kumar Memorial Inter College, Gangola Dataganj, Budaun and Sri Onkar Singh, Manager of the College, are aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Budaun dated 27.9.1984 disapproving their action in suspending Sri Ram pal Singh, Principal of the College (Respondent No. 2). They have, therefore, approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution on 27.8.1984 placing Sri Rampal Singh (Respondent No. 2) under suspension, and served a charge sheet, leveling as many as 27 charges, upon him on 28.8.1984. As required by Section 16G(6) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, it also sent a report in that regard to the District Inspector of Schools Budaun (Respondent No. 1). The District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 27.9.1984 disapproved the action of the Managing Committee on the ground that it did not, while forwarding its resolution dated 27.8.1984, send along with it the entire evidence in support of the charges leveled against the Principal. The Petitioners filed the present petition on 10.10.1984 and prayed that the order dated 27.9.1984 be quashed. The Principal (Respondent No. 2) appeared before the Court, and prayed that he should be heard before any orders regarding admission of the writ petition were made. The court permitted the parties to exchange their affidavits and directed that the petition be listed for admission thereafter. It also passed an interim order to the following effect: Meanwhile until further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order dated 27.9.1984 is stayed. If, however, Respondent No. 2 has already joined, he is restrained from interfering with the office of the Principal of the Petitioners' Institution.
(3.) WHILE filing the counter affidavit, Sri Ram pal Singh (Respondent No. 2) also moved an application on 15.11.1984 contending that by lapse of time, relief claimed in the petition had become in fructuous, and prayed that the interim order dated 10.10.1984 should be ' vacated. The petition was listed for admission on 1.4.1985 when the court made an order admitting the petition and granting time to the other Respondent, namely, the District Inspector of Schools, to file a counter affidavit. It did not, at that time, pass any specific orders on the application dated 15.11.1984, filed by Respondent No. 2. Instead, it made a fresh interim order which ran thus: In the meantime the Petitioner Committee of Management is directed to pay the subsistence allowance of the Respondent No. 2 as Principal as permissible under the Act within 30 days from today for the period during which he has been under suspension and shall also keep on paying every month. In case of default, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated. The application dated 15.11.1984 filed by Respondent No. 2 was eventually put up for orders before the Court on 12.8.1985. The Respondent again pressed the plea that as the impugned order had, by lapse of time, come to an end, the petition had become in fructuous and that it should be dismissed accordingly. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners objected to consideration of the prayer made in tae application' on the ground that the question whether or not the relief claimed in the petition had become in fructuous by lapse of time, was considered by the Court while passing orders for admission of the writ petition on 1.4.1985. In the circumstances, the application for the purpose moved by the Respondent prior to the date of admission cannot now be countenanced. The Court accepted the plea raised by the Petitioners and held that, in the circumstances, it was not necessary for it to pass any further order on the application dated 15.11.1984, but it made it clear that if any fresh application for the purpose is moved, the same would be dealt with by the appropriate bench.;