Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) This Special Appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned single Judge allowing a writ petition at the instance or respondent no. 1 and quashing an order passed suspending him from service.
(2.) The material facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent Deen Dayal Gautam claimed to be the Principal of appellant no. 1 which is a recognised Institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and is managed by a Committee of Management in accordance with the Scheme of Administration framed and approved under the relevant provisions of the Act There were two rival committees of Management each claiming right to manage the Institution. One of those Committees was headed by one Doonger Singh, who claimed himself to be the Manager of the Institution. One Devi Singh claimed to be the Manager of the Institution on the basis of an election alleged to have been held on the 8th July, 1973. Doonger Singh was however, given recognition as the Manager of the Institution for the purpose of running the administration of the College. A civil suit was on the relevant date pending with regard to the claims of the two rival committee. On the 18th October, 1973 Doonger Singh suspended Deendayal Gautam from service. By means of a writ petition presented on 12th July, 1974, Deen Dayal Gautam challenged the legality of the suspension order and prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to the writ petition to treat him in service. The writ petition was allowed. The order of suspension was quashed and direction was issued that the writ petitioner shall be treated as in service of appellant no. 1 Aggrieved by the judgment, the college and its President of the Managing Committee through its Manager Doonger Singh have appealed.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondents and are of the opinion that the appeal has no merits. As already stated, the appellant was suspended from service by means of an order dated 18th October, 1973. While the order of suspension was still subsisting ai d during the pendency of the writ petition, the Act was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 and this Amending Act came into force on the 16th May, 1975. As a result of this amending Act, amendments were introduced in section 16-G. Sub-section (5) of Section 16-G was amended and instituted by the Amending Act and it provided for certain contingencies in which alone Head of an Institution or teacher could be suspended by the Management. Sub-section (6), which was introduced in the section, provided that where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of management, it shall be reported to the District Inspector of Schools within 30 days from the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, in case the order of suspension was passed before such commencement, and within 7 days from the date of the order of suspension in any other case. In the instant case, the order of suspension had been passed before the coming into force of the Amending Act and consequently the order of suspension should have been reported to the Inspector of Schools by the Committee of Management within 30 days from 15th May, 1975. There is nothing on the record to show that this was done by the Management. Subsection (7), which also was introduced by the Amending Act, laid down that an order of suspension, unless approved in writing by the Inspector of Schools, shall not remain in force for more than 60 days from the date of the commencement of the Amending Act. Undisputably, no order approving the suspension of Deen Dayal Gautam was ever passed. The order of suspension. Consequently automatically ceased to be operative. Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in issuing the writ and direction that he did.;