Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5.
It is submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to command the District Inspector of Schools to take appropriate decision in the matter of suspension of the petitioner, the papers of which were duly forwarded, was disposed of with direction to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before him which has been affirmed in special appeal. The petitioner has again approached this Court challenging the letter dated 24.6.2011 of the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut whereby the respondent no. 5 has been reinstated back and the hearing in the matter has been continuing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that District Inspector of Schools has failed to comply with the order as there was a specific direction to decide the issue within three weeks and he has deliberately allowed the statutory period of sixty days to lapse facilitating the reinstatement of respondent no. 5.
In reply, it has been submitted that the decision could not be taken because of non cooperation of the committee of management itself in as much the petitioner - committee of management did not appear on 24.6.2011 which was the date fixed and sought adjournment. The letter of the committee of management is annexed as Annexure '9' to the writ petition.
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh has contended that the next date fixed was 22.7.2011 on which date the committee of management again did not appear and the District Inspector of Schools had to adjourn the matter.
In view of the provisions of Section 16-G (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the suspension of respondent no. 5 automatically lapsed after sixty days for want of approval from the District Inspector of Schools. Thus, there cannot be any exception to the fact that respondent no. 5 is to put in charge and to continue as Principal of the institution unless some order is passed by the District Inspector of Schools.
Although, delay in disposal of the matter despite direction of this Court is attributed to the petitioner - committee of management itself but still the conduct of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be appreciated because in case committee of management was not participating in the proceedings and getting it adjourned deliberately, the District Inspector of Schools ought to have taken decision in the matter as the order only required opportunity to be provided and in the facts and circumstances, ample opportunity has been provided to the committee of management.
Considering the facts, no interference is warranted in the reinstatement of respondent no. 5 on the post of Principal after the lapse of statutory period of sixty days in accordance with the provisions of Section 16-G (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the same shall be governed by the order to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools.
However, in the facts and circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools is once again directed to take a reasoned decision in the matter in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him giving opportunity to the parties.
It is being made clear that if either of the parties do not avail the opportunity afforded by the District Inspector of Schools, he shall be free to proceed in the matter on the basis of record and pass appropriate orders.
Order Date :- 27.7.2011 Dcs