JUDGMENT : Abhinava Upadhya, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that the Authorised Controller by the order impugned dated 25.7.2019 suspended the petitioner, who was working as Principal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 11.7.2019 by which the appointment of authorised controller itself has been stayed. The authorised controller was appointed by an order dated 31.10.2018 and this Court in Writ Petition No. 18694 of 2019 by order dated 11.7.2019 stayed the appointment of the authorised controller. It is, therefore, submitted that on 25.7.2019, there is no authorised controller, therefore, the petitioner could not have been suspended. 4. Learned standing counsel was required to seek instruction and upon instruction he submitted that the order was served on the authorised controller after the impugned order was passed. Since, the order of appointment of Authorised Controller has been stayed, he is no longer the authorised controller and has no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension dated 25.7.2019. 5. With the consent of the parties and without calling for the counter- affidavit, the order of suspension of the petitioner by the Authorised Controller dated 25.7.2019 as well as the order dated 26.7.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools are hereby quashed. 6. The writ petition of the aforesaid extent is allowed.