( 1 ) -PETITIONER, Mr. Ajay Singh, by this writ petition, assails the invocation of Rule 115 (4) of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973, whereby he was placed under suspension by an order bearing No. DPPS/2360 dated 7. 11. 2003, from the date of his original termination from service w. e. f. 31. 1. 2002. Petitioner further assails the rejection of his representation dated 27. 11. 2003 against anorder dated 7. 11. 2003, by communication dated 2. 12. 2003, justifying the deemed suspension from the date of original order in terms of rule 115 (4) and further holding that no statutory approval under Section 8 of the Delhi Education Act was required.

( 2 ) DURING the course of submissions, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has confined relief to petitioner s claim for his dues from 1. 2. 2002 to the date of passing of the order of suspension i. e. , 7. 11. 2003. The submission of Mr. Sethi is that Rule 115 (4) could not have been invoked and is not attracted. Hence after the original termination order has been set aside, there can be no deemed suspension from the said date and the suspension order can only be prospective without prejudice to the petitioner s rights to assail the same.

( 3 ) FOR an appreciation of the matter in controversy, let me notice the facts, as are borne out from the record.

( 4 ) PETITIONER was employed as a Post Graduate Teacher in Physics with respondent No. 1 Delhi Police Public School. Respondent/school is a recognized private unaided School. The Managing Committee of respondent No. 1/ school on the allegations of misconduct, accused the petitioner of misbehaviour with wards, coercing students for tuition etc. , and for neglecting duties and classes, using of indecent and vulgar language and cruelty towards students. The Managing Committee of respondent No. 1/school is reported to have subsequently passed a Resolution that in view of inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings and to curb in discipline in School and in the purported interest of students, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 30. 1. 2002, terminating the services w. e. f. 31. 1. 2002, pursuant to the resolution of 7. 1. 2002. As a result of the said termination, the benefit of concessional fees available to the wards of the petitioner was also withdrawn. Petitioner assailed the order of termination before the Delhi School tribunal, Delhi. The Delhi School Tribunal held that the Managing Committee of respondent No. 1/school did not follow the procedure, as laid down under the Delhi Education Rules and Act. No approval had been obtained from the directorate of Education before imposing the punishment. No Disciplinary committee had been constituted and no inquiry was conducted. In the result, the Tribunal held that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not hold any inquiry and had not sought the approval of the Directorate of Education before terminating the services of the petitioner, held the order as not sustainable. Appeal was accepted and the impugned order was set aside. Petitioner after the impugned order of termination being set aside, made a representation for being permitted to join the services. It is in this back ground that the respondent passed the order dated 7. 11. 2003 under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 115 of the Rules, suspending the petitioner. As noted earlier, vide order dated 2. 12. 2003, petitioner s representation dated 27. 11. 2003 was also rejected, holding that prior approval in terms of Section 8 of the Act was not required for passing the order of suspension, as the approval was inherent in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 115.

( 5 ) THE controversy in the present writ petition thus revolves around the validity of the order of suspension purported to be under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 115, relating back to the original termination from service, which has been set aside. For facility of reference Sub-rule (4) of Rule 115 is reproduced as under:

"115. Suspen