- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Jain, representing the 3rd respondent.
(2.) IT brooks no dispute that on occur rence of a permanent vacancy of the post of Principal in Mahatma Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Higher Secondary School Chilooli Kanpur Dehat, the 3rd respon dent, by reason of his being the senior most teacher in the L. T grade, was ap pointed as Head Master of the Institution. His signatures as Ad hoc Head master were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 13-11- 1992. Subsequently, by order dated 29-7-1998, the 3rd respondent was suspended from service and the papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval under the provisions of Section 16-G (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspector of Schools made no or ders within 60 days as a result of which the suspension of the 3rd respondent ex hausted itself by operation of sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of the Act. In the meantime, the Management, as transpires from the record, concluded the enquiry and submitted a proposal to the District Inspector of Schools for reversion of the petitioner from the post of ad hoc Prin cipal to his substantive post in L. T. grade. The District Inspector of Schools by order dated 14-10-1998 pronounced that since the suspension was not approved within 60 days, it came to an end by operation of Section 16-G (7) of the Act and according ly, the 3rd respondent would stand reinstated to the post of ad hoc Head Master of the Institution. By another order dated 20-11-1998, the District inspector of Schools directed the Manage ment of the Institution not to meddle with the functioning of the 3rd respondent as Head of the Institution. IT is stated in the order dated 20-11-1998 that the matter regarding approval to proposal of the Management to revert the third respon dent to his substantive post of teacher in L, T. grade was under consideration an ap propriate decision would be taken in that regard after reference to the Secondary Education Service Selection Board. The orders dated 14-10-1998 and 20-11-1998 are the subject-matter of impugne judg ment this petition. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of this Court Chandra Bhushan Misra v. District Inspec tor of Schools Deoria & Ors. , 1995 (26) ALR 24, the District Inspector of Schools was under a duty to reckon with the ques tion of grant of approval to the suspension even after expiry of the period of 60 days. Sri Ashok Khare also canvassed that in view of the fact that the reversion of the 3rd respondent was already proposed by the Management, it was not proper for the District Inspector of Schools to direct reinstatement of the 3rd respondent to the post of the Head of the Institution. In opposition, Sri R. K. Jain, appearing for the respondent submitted that the suspen sion having elapsed by efflux of time, the 3rd respondent stood automatically reinstated and was as such entitled to con tinue as Head of the Institution until his reversion is lent approval by the Secondary Education Service Selection Board under Section 21 of the U. P. Act 5 of 1982. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am persuaded to the view that the matter must be remitted to the District Inspector of Schools for passing a reasoned order. A Full Bench of this Court has held the view in Chandra Bhausan Misra v. Distt. Inspector of Schools Deoria & Ors. , 1995 (26) ALR 24, that the District Inspector of Schools does not cease to have jurisdiction in the matter merely because the suspension has petered out by efflux of time by virtue of sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspec tor of Schools was, therefore, under an obligation to examine the case on its merits and pass a reasoned order either approving or disapproving the suspen sion. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of Committee of Manage ment SMRKI College v. District Inspector of Schools Ballia and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226, that the power of approval or disap proval as visualized by sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of the Act is supervisory in nature and the District Inspector of Schools in passing the order of approval or disapproval, as the case may be, has to see as to whether the order passed by the Committee of Management was within the four corners of the Act and the Regula tions framed there under and as such, the District Inspector of Schools is under a duty to record reasons so as to give proper to the order refusing or approving the suspension. In the instant case, the Dis trict Inspector of Schools has not recorded any reasons for his act of disapproving the suspension. As a matter of fact, the Dis trict Inspector of Schools has not applied his mind to the merits of the case and has proceeded to pass the impugned order merely on the ground that the suspension automatically came to an end since it was not countenanced in approval within a period of 60 days. In my opinion, the legal position that emerges from the decisions aforestated is that after expiration of the period of 60 days, suspended teacher or the principal as the case may be could stand reinstated but in the event of ap proval being given at a later stage even after expiry of the period of 60 days, such teacher or Principal, as the case may be, shall again be put to suspension. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the impugned order as it stands, cannot be sustained.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is quashed with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to go into the tenability of the suspension pending final decision on the proposal of reversion sub mitted by the Committee of Management and pass appropriate reasoned order either lending approval or disapproval to the suspension expeditiously and till then, the 3rd respondent shall be allowed to continue as ad hoc Principal in the Col lege. Petition allowed in part. .;