JUDGMENT Delay of 8 days in filing Special Appeal is condoned. Application is allowed for the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application. The Special Appeal is to be treated as filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal 2. Sangeeta Gupta, petitioner-appellant, is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 4th February, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2841 of 2016 (Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and others), disposing of the writ petition in question, without interfering with the impugned suspension order dated 8th January, 2016. 3. Brief background of the case as has been mentioned before this Court is that Maharishi Daya Nand Balika Junior High School, Mundera, District Allahabad has been a recognised Junior High School under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the said Institution in question has been a duly aided Institution from the State Government for ensuring payment to teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution and accordingly, the provision of U.P. Act No.6 of 1979 has been applicable to the said Institution. 4. Petitioner-appellant submits that she has been performing and discharging her duties as Head Mistress of the Institution and the Institution in question has been accorded recognition at the High School Level as well as Intermediate Level under 'Vitt Vihin' recognition. Petitioner-appellant has contended that her problem started when a new incumbent Manoj Kumar Kesarwani has taken over as the Manager of the Committee of Management pursuant to election dated 22.02.2015 and District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad has accorded recognition to the said elections on 24.02.2015. 5. Petitioner-appellant submits that the newly recognised Manager was bent upon to harass her by all means and all sort of directives were being given to her. It has also been contended that insistence was being made for making payment of salary to Paras Nath Mishra and Geeta Srivastava, who have been absent without leave. Petitioner-appellant submits that when all these facts have been brought to the knowledge and notice of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and as nothing has been done, she filed Writ Petition No. 29944 of 2015 (Smt. Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and others). Petitioner-appellant submits that when all these facts have been brought to the knowledge and notice of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and as nothing has been done, she filed Writ Petition No. 29944 of 2015 (Smt. Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition in question was disposed of by judgement dated 21.05.2015 with the direction to Basic Shiksha Adhikari to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petitioner-appellant submits that same has infuriated the Manager and the Manager, in his turn, has proceeded to pass order that no work should be taken from the petitioner-appellant on the post of Head Mistress and charge be handed over to Geeta Srivastava, a Assistant Teacher. Petitioner-appellant submits that she filed Writ Petition no. 43466/2015 (Smt. Sangeet Gupta v. State of U.P. and others) and on 12.08.2015 orders were passed by this Court asking Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad to take decision in the matter. Petitioner-appellant submits that thereafter an order was passed on 05.10.2015 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad mentioning therein that attendance register would be separately maintained by the Head Mistress of the Institution. Petitioner-appellant submits that in compliance of the order passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, salary bill was submitted by the petitioner-appellant and a note was also made with regard to the absence of Paras Nath Mishra and Smt. Geeta Srivastava. Petitioner-appellant submits that on 04.12.2015, the Manager has proceeded to pass three separate orders in order to dilute the authority of the petitioner-appellant and her submission is that on 8th January, 2016, an order has been passed placing her under suspension. Petitioner-appellant submits that she has preferred Writ Petition no.2841 of 2016 (Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and others) and the same has been dismissed. At this juncture, present Special Appeal in question has been filed. 6. Petitioner-appellant submits that she has preferred Writ Petition no.2841 of 2016 (Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and others) and the same has been dismissed. At this juncture, present Special Appeal in question has been filed. 6. From the side of the petitioner-appellant, Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Subedar Mishra, Advocate submitted before this Court that the Institution in question is an upgraded High School and Intermediate and the recognition of election has also been granted to the Manager by the District Inspector of Schools and once the Institution in question is an upgraded High School and Intermediate, then suspension order has to be in consonance with the provisions as contained under Section 16(G) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and said suspension order, if not approved by the District Inspector of Schools shall become inoperative after expiry of 60 days period and here learned Single Judge has not at all considered all these aspects of the matter and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner-appellant. 7. Learned Standing Counsel in principle has agreed to the arguments that has been so advanced. 8. Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate appearing for the Committee of Management proceeded to support the decision that has been taken by the Management of the Institution through its Manager and contended that authority of suspension has rightly been exercised and as such no interference is required to be made. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that has not been disputed before us is to the effect that the Institution in question initially has been a Junior High School and the said Institution in question with the passage of time has been granted recognition as High School as well as Intermediate under Vitt Vihin recognition. Even as on date the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff who have been functioning against sanctioned post of under Junior High School are being paid salary under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979 on account of transitory provision being there in the shape of Section 13-A of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979. 10. Petitioner-appellant has been functioning as the Head Mistress of the Institution and by virtue of the same, she has been looking after the functioning and duties of the Principal of the Institution also. 10. Petitioner-appellant has been functioning as the Head Mistress of the Institution and by virtue of the same, she has been looking after the functioning and duties of the Principal of the Institution also. The newly elected Committee of Management on the basis of fresh elections dated 22.02.2015 granted recognition on 24.02.2015 by District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad has taken over charge. Thereafter after such recognition has been accorded, an order of single operation which was operating in the Institution with regard to salary account stood revoked by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Thus this much is clear that there has been dispute in between petitioner-appellant as well as newly elected Manager Committee of the Institution in respect of teaching and nonteaching staff of the Institution namely Smt. Geeta Srivastava, Smt. Gyan Shashi Shukla, Shri Paras Nath Mishra, Shri Satya Dev Sharma and Shri Dinesh Kumar and in this background, petitioner claims that authority of suspension has been exercised on 8th January, 2016. 11. A Full Bench of our Court in the case of State of U.P. v. District Judge, Varanasi and others 1981 UPLBEC 336 has held as follows: “A basic school or a junior High School is thus different from a High School or an Intermediate College. On the plain language of these definitions the same institution cannot be called a basic school or a Junior High School as well as a High School or an Intermediate College. Each one has a distinct legal entity. On a basic school or a Junior High School being upgraded as a High School or an Intermediate College the identity of the institution known as basic school or Junior High School is lost. It ceases to exist as a legal entity and in its place another institution with a new legal entity comes into being. One cannot be equated with the other. In this connection reformance may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner Lucknow Division v. Km. Perm Lata Misra (AIR 1971 SC 334). It would further be seen that administration including constitution of Committee of Management of an institution recognised under U.P. Act 11 of 1921 is to be carried out in accordance with a Scheme of Administration prepared under Section 16 A of the said Act and this section does not apply to a basic school or a Junior High School. It would further be seen that administration including constitution of Committee of Management of an institution recognised under U.P. Act 11 of 1921 is to be carried out in accordance with a Scheme of Administration prepared under Section 16 A of the said Act and this section does not apply to a basic school or a Junior High School. For all these persons and in the absence of any specific provisions in this behalf none having been pointed out to us maintenance grant payable to the basic school or Junior High School which has been upgraded as High School cannot and does not authomatically become payable to the recognised High School. Suppose after a Basic School, or a Junior High School has been upgraded as a recognised High School, the State Government stops payment of the amount of maintenance grant which was being paid to the basic school, can the recognised High School claim as a matter of right that the said amount has become automatically payable to it. The answer, in the absence of any specific provision permitting such automatic formation, so to speak till, in our opinion, have to be in the negative. Such a recognised High School will have to wait maintenance grant payable to it as a recognised High School has been fixed as contemplated by Section 2(c) of U.P. Act 24 of 1971. Consequently, even if the maintenance grant payable to a basic school or a Junior High School is continued to be paid to those who were managing the erstwhile basic school or Junior High School it cannot be said that the upgraded recognised High School is receiving any maintenance grant as defined in Section 2(c) of U.P. Act 24 of 1971.” 12. The law on the subject is clear that Junior High School looses its identity when a High School comes into existence. Consequently, inevitable conclusion is that on institution being upgraded from Junior High School to High School its affair would be governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder and not at all by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. 13. Section 16-G of U.P. Act No.II of 1921 deals with conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees including suspension, Chapter III Regulation 39 deals with transmission of report of suspension to District Inspector Schools. 13. Section 16-G of U.P. Act No.II of 1921 deals with conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees including suspension, Chapter III Regulation 39 deals with transmission of report of suspension to District Inspector Schools. Relevant extract of the provisions are being looked into. (5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management- (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or (C) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (6) Where any Head of institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within 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 commencement, and within seven days from the date of the order of suspension in any other case, and the report shall contain such particulars as maybe prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents. (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 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. (8) If, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the Management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section. (9) All appeals pending before the Deputy Director of Education (women) immediately before the commencement of this sub-section shall be transferred to the Joint Director of Education (Women ) for disposal. Provided that where the Deputy Director of Education (Women) has already commenced the hearing of any such appeal before the commencement of this sub-section, the appeal shall be disposed of by 6 the Deputy Director or Education (Women) herself. Provided that where the Deputy Director of Education (Women) has already commenced the hearing of any such appeal before the commencement of this sub-section, the appeal shall be disposed of by 6 the Deputy Director or Education (Women) herself. Explanation-For the purposes of this section, the expression "Regional Deputy Director, Education shall, in relation to a girls" institution means the Joint Director of Education (Women). Chapter-III Regulation-39 (a) The report regarding the suspension of the head of institution or of the teacher to be submitted to the Inspector under subsection (6) of Section 16-G shall contain the following particulars and be accompanied by the following document: - (a) the name of the persons suspended among with, particulars of the (posts including grades) held by him since the date of his original appointment till the time of suspension including particulars as to the nature of tenure held at the time of suspension, e.g., temporary permanent or a officiating; (b) a certified copy of the report on the basis of which such person was last confirmed or allowed to cross efficiency bar, whichever later. (c) Details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended; (d) Certified copies of the complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of which such person was suspended; (e) Certified copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending such person; (f) Certified copy of the order of suspension issued to such person; (g) In case such person was suspended previously also, details of the charges, on which and the period of which he was suspended on previous occasions accompanied by certified copies of the orders on the basis of which he was re-instated. (2) An employee other than a head of institution or a teacher may be suspended by the appointing authority on any of the grounds specified in Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (5) of Section 16-G. ^^3 mi & fofu;e 2 ds vUrxZr fuyEcu dk dksbZ vkns'k izHkko esa ugha jgsxk] tc rd fd ,sls vkns'k ds fnukad ls lkB fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{kd }kjk bldk fyf[kr :i esa vuqeksnu u dj fn;k tk;sA** Section 5. No member of the teaching staff or the Principal or Head master shall act as an office bearer of the Committee of Management of any recognised institution. Section 6. No member of the teaching staff or the Principal or Head master shall act as an office bearer of the Committee of Management of any recognised institution. Section 6. All appointments shall be made under formal orders or letters of appointment with the sanction of the appointing authority. Section 7. A person selected for substantive appointment against a clear vacancy shall be placed on probation from the date of joining duty. 14. Bare perusal of provision would go to show that Sub Section (5) of Section 16-G starts with a caution that no head of institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management. - (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him, or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Sub-Section (6) of Section 16-G deals with the obligation cast upon the Committee of Management where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, that the said matter has to be reported to the Inspector within thirty days from the date of the commencement of 1975 Act. Sub -Section (7) of Section 16-G is clear and categorical that 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 Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or 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. Sub-Section (8) of Section 16-G deals with the situation if, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the Management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section. Scheme of provisions noted above, would clearly reflect that Section 16- G has been inserted by U.P. Act No. XXXVI of 1958 to keep check on exercise of authority by the respective Managing Committee of the institution and to prevent the continuance of suspension pending inquiry for long period of time. The effect of sub-section (7) of Section 16-G is that the suspension order shall cease to remain in force on the expiry of 60 days and statutory power has been given to the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the management has not acted in a high handed manner in the matter of suspension, head of the institution or teacher. District Inspector of Schools has further been conferred authority to see that even if suspension has been approved, incumbent is not made to suffer and same being used as tool of harassment, under Sub Section (8) of Section 16-G wherein District Inspector of Schools has been conferred with the authority to revoke the said order after providing opportunity of hearing to the Management. Thus statutory supervisory power has been conferred upon the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that power of suspension is not at all misused in the fact of the case and same has been used for bona fide purpose and not with the sole object to deprive an incumbent to perform and discharge his duties and receive salary in full. Scheme of things, point out that objective of said provision is to save the teacher from arbitrary action of the Management of the institution and the District Inspector of Schools has to satisfy himself as to whether order of suspension has been rightly passed or it is illegal or malafide or it is undeservedly. This court in the case of Govind Swarup Pandey v. Aurthorized Controller, 1981 UPLBEC 17 has defined the authority of the District Inspector of Schools at the point of time when he proceeds to consider grant of approval of suspension. 15. Once the Institution in question has been upgraded to High School and thereafter upto intermediate education, then the law on the subject is clear that the institution in question would be covered by the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the service condition of the petitioner-appellant would be governed by the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 after up-gradation of the Institution. In view of this, once such is the factual situation that the Institution in question would be governed by the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, then as is provided under Section 16 (G) (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the suspension order would remain in operation for 60 days and thereafter same would become inoperative by operation of law. Thus the law on the subject is clear that any order passed by the Committee of Management cannot continue beyond 60 days unless and until it is approved by the District Inspector of Schools and here suspension order has been passed on 8th January, 2016 and as more than 60 days period has already expired in view of this, in consonance with the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the said suspension order as on date has become in-operative by operation of law and net effect of the same is that petitioner-appellant is entitled to function as Head Master and receive her salary but her continuance would abide by the decision to be taken by the District Inspector of Schools on the papers being transmitted. 16. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Bhoosan Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools 1995 (1) UPLBEC 460 has taken the view that if suspension order is not approved within 60 days, then said suspension order becomes inoperative by operation of law, until it is approved by District Inspector of Schools. 17. Accordingly, we proceed to ask the Managing Committee of the Institution concerned to forward the entire papers pertaining to resolution of suspension to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and it is always expected that the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad would deal with the matter objectively in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of passing of this order. 18. In view of this, Special Appeal is allowed/disposed of. Appeal allowed.