Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Shri Bachchu ... vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 1 July, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106029
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8961 of 2024
Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Shri Bachchu Ram Heera Lal Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay Chhata And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajitabh Choubey,C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri R.P. Dwivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia has declined to approve the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Manager of Shri Bachchu Ram Heera Lal Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Chhata, District-Ballia placing the respondent no. 3/Chhiteshwar Nath Mishra, PrincipalShri Bachchu Ram Heera Lal Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Chhata, District-Ballia under suspension.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before declining to grant approval to the suspension order, the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Hari Singh Rajput versus State of U.P. and 2 Others 2015 (3) ADJ 654, wherein this Court held that an opportunity of hearing ought to be granted to the teacher, Principal and the Management before the District Inspector of Schools and that he should consider whether to approve the order of suspension under Section 16 G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or not.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 has submitted that an order of suspension remains operative for a period of 60 days only whereupon and after expiry of aforesaid period ceases to operate. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 has relied upon a decision rendered by this Division Bench of this Court in Tej Narayan Singh versus State of U.P. & Others 2008 (4) ESC 2301 (DB), paragraph-14, wherein it was held that a Principal/teahcer become entitled to be rendered after expiry of 60 days from the date of suspension unless suspension is approved by the District Inspector of School.
6. In view of the full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Bhushan Misra versus District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460 learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 further submitted that as the suspension order become inoperative after expiry of period of 60 days Manger of the Institution has filed a fresh suspension order dated 01.03.2022.
7. The opposite party no. 3 has assailed the validity of that suspension order by filing Writ A 7667 of 2024 (Chhiteshwar Nath Mishra versus State of U.P. and 4 Others) wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 17.05.2024 staying the operation of the second suspension order.
8. As suspension order dated 29.11.2023 ceased to operate after expiry of 60 days from the date of its passing the question of legality of order passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ballia refusing to accord approval to the suspension order has become academic only.
9. As the Manager of the Institution has already passed a subsequent suspension order, the operation whereof has already been stayed by this Court and the writ petition challenging the validity of the suspension order by this court is pending.
10. No useful purpose will be served by entertaining this writ petition challenging the validity of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia for deciding a mere academic question.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
SY
