V. N, KHARE, J. Shri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Standing Counsel appear for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are agreed that this Special Appeal may finally be disposed of at the admission stage. We accordingly dispose of the Special Appeal finally. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 1995, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 3. The appellant is a Committee of Management of an Institution, known as Shukulpur Intermediate College, Shukulpur District Allahabad. It is constituted under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act and that Regulations iramad thereunder. Sri Ambika Prasad Misra, respondent No. 4 is a Lecturer in the institution run by the appellant. It appears that the permanent Principal of the institution retired and as such a substantive vacancy arose for the appointment of Principal in the Institution. Under the of Removal Difficulties Order issued under the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1981 it is open to the Management of an institution to appoint a senior-most Lecturer as ad hoc Principal pending selection of a regular principal of the Institution. It appears that Sri Ambika Prasad Misra, who alleges himself to be senior-most teacher staked his claim for appointment as ad hoc principal of the institution In between time the appellant suspended Sri Ambika Prasad Misra pending disciplinary proceeding against him on 4th December, 1994. It appears that the appellant although reported the District Inspector of School in respect of suspension of Sri Misra within seven days from the date of the order of suspen sion but did not send the report and other particulars in respect of suspension of Sri Misra within seven days of the passing of the order of suspension. The District Inspector of Schools by order dated 13th January, 1995 revoked the order of suspension on the ground that the appellant did not submit the report and other particulars regarding the suspension of respondent No. 4 within seven days from the date of the order of suspension as provided under sub section (6) of Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act. This led to the filing of petition by the appellant in this Court challeng ing the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 13th January, 1995. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant did not find favour with learned Single Judge, consequently the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant has come up in Special Appeal. 4. Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the pro visions of sub-section (6) of Section 16-G of the Amendment Act which pro vides for submitting the report and other particulars regarding the suspension of a teacher to the Inspector within seven days from the date of suspension is not mandatory and as such the order of suspension cannot be revoked merely on this ground alone. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Prasad Gov. v. Authorised Controller, V. D. T. Inter College, Mianganj, Unnao, 1984 UPLBEC 897. 5. On the other hand Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 contended that the provision is mandatory and any non-compliance thereof would result in revocation of the order of suspension. In order to appreciate the argument, it is necessary to extract the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 16-G of the Act. "where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Com mittee of Management it shall be reported to the Inspector with in thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, in case the order of suspension was passed before such commence ment, and within seven days from the date of the order of suspen sion in any other case, and the report shall contain such parti culars as may be prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents. " 6. Regulation 39 framed under the Act provides the particulars which a Management is required to furnish before the District Inspector of Schools within stipulated period of time. 7. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether if there is a delay in submitting the report can the District Inspector of Schools revoke the order of suspension passed against a teacher. In the case of Mahesh Prasad Gov. v. Authorised Controller V. D. 1. 7. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether if there is a delay in submitting the report can the District Inspector of Schools revoke the order of suspension passed against a teacher. In the case of Mahesh Prasad Gov. v. Authorised Controller V. D. 1. College (supra), it was held that requirement of sending the report and particulars regarding suspen sion of teacher within seven days is not mandatory. We are respectfully in agreement within the view taken in the said decision. The reason being that in sub-section (6) report regarding suspension is required to be submitted with in seven days, whereas under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G, the suspension order is to continue for period of sixty days unless disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools. So even if the report regarding suspension is not received within seven days, the suspension order continues. The purpose of sending the report alongwith the particulars regarding suspension of a teacher within seven days appears to be that the District Inspector of Schools may take a decision quickly within the stipulated period of time. If no material at all is furnished by Management at the time, when the District Inspector of Schools is taking a decision and ultimately the District Inspector of Schools revokes the order of suspension in the absence of the materials regarding suspension of a teacher, the Management is to blame itself, where the report and other particulars regarding suspension of a teacher is received within seven days of the date of suspension. It is still open to the District Inspector of Schools to call for further material from the Management in order to satisfy himself in respect of validity of the order of suspension. Thus, in case the required report and other particulars concerning suspension if received by the office of the District Inspector of Schools after passing of the seven days from the date of the order of suspension, but is available on the date, when District Inspector of Schools is to take decision in respect of validity of the order of suspen sion, the said report and particulars cannot be rejected by the District Inspector of Schools merely on the ground that it was not submitted within seven days from the date of order of suspension. In the present case the report and particulars regarding suspension was sent after seven days from the date of the order of suspension, but was available on the date when the District Inspector of Schools took decision. Under such circumstances it is not open to District Inspector of Schools to brush aside the material furnished by the Management, and to revoke the order of suspension merely on the ground that the said material was not furnished within seven days from the date of the order of suspension. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools revoking the order of suspension passed by the Management was not warranted by law. We accordingly, set aside the order of the District inspector of Schools dated 13-1-1995 and the order of the learned Single Judge under appeal. The District Inspector of Schools shall consider the report and other particulars concerning the suspension of respon dent No. 4 even if it was sent after expiry of seven days from the date of order of suspension. We may further clarify that if the District inspector of Schools still feels that further documents are required, he may call for the same and take a decision in accordance with law within the time indicated above. 8. The special appeal is allowed. There shall be no older as to costs. Appeal allowed. .