Allahabad High Court
C/M Shri Swami Krishna Nand Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1264 of 2021
Petitioner :- C/M Shri Swami Krishna Nand Inter College And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,R. K. Singh Kaosik
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dan Bahadur Yadav
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to grant approval to the suspension resolution dated 08.11.2020, moved by the petitioner before the respondent no.3-District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 24.12.2020."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by means of a resolution dated 08.11.2020, the respondent no.4, Vinay Kumar Pandey, was placed under suspension and the respondent no.3, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, was intimated of the same by letter dated 09.11.2020 seeking his approval for the suspension. Despite repeated reminders, the suspension order was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It is contended that in the meantime, the inquiry proceedings were continuing but the respondent no.4 was deliberately absenting himself from the inquiry proceedings and as such by means of a letter dated 24.12.2020, the District Inspector of Schools was informed of the recommendation for cancellation of regularisation of respondent no.4 on the post of Principal and approval was sought for the same. It is contended that though the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 16G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1921') provides that unless the order of suspension is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, it will not remain in force for more than 60 days, it is always open to the District Inspector of Schools to pass an order of approval even after 60 days and in this connection, the learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court in Smt. Nirmal Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) ESC 428.
Firstly, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no avail to the petitioners as far as the proposition aforesaid being advanced is concerned. The said judgment holds that recording of reasons while approving or disapproving the suspension is sine qua non and if no reasons are recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, the order would be vitiated and cannot be upheld. However, it was in the case of Chandra Bhushan Misra v. District Inspector of Schools and others reported in (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460, that the full bench, while answering the questions framed, observed as under:
"3. ............... In view of the provisions of sub-section (7), an order of suspension of Head or a teacher of an Institution shall remain in force for a period of sixty days from the date of such order even if is not approved in writing by the Inspector; but in the absence of the approval by the Inspector such an order will cease to operate on expiry of sixty days from the date of the order, although it will continue to exist though inoperative. But if the order of suspension is approved even after the expiry of sixty days, it will come into force again and will become effective immediately on such approval. ............."
It is of note that this judgement does not mandate the District Inspector of Schools to pass an order of approval of suspension after expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of suspension.
Secondly, Section 16G (7) of the Act of 1921 does not mandate the District Inspector of Schools to pass an order of approval of suspension. Section 16-G(7) of the Act of 1921 reads as follows:-
"(7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh 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 prayer for mandamus, as sought in the present petition, therefore, cannot be granted.
This writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
