SUDHIR CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. KALI SADHAN CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Rule obtained by the petitioner for quashing of an order of termination of the service of the petitioner, annexure 'b' to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a school known as 'demari Higher Secondary school' in the district of Midnapore. This school which was being managed by the managing committee underwent a change in its administration. An order was made by the President, West bengal Board of Secondary Education superseding the managing committee of the school and appointing an ad-hoc committee in its place in exercise of the powers conferred under section 28 (2)of the West Bengal Board of Secondary education Act, 1963 read with rule 6 of the Rules for management of non-government high school framed under the Act. This order was made and communicated by the Secretary of the board of Secondary Education by a memo dated 6-12-69 (annexure 'a' to the affidavit-in-opposition of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 12 ). The ad-hoc committee so appointed passed a resolution terminating the service of the petitioner and one K. S. Chandra, Secretary of this Committee communicated this resolution to the petitioner by his letter dated 28-2-70. In spite of representation, this order was not withdrawn and that is why in short, the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present rule.

(2.) TWO points were raised by Mr. Ghorai, the learned counsel for the petitioner. First is that the appointment of the ad-hoc committee on supersession of the managing committee of the school concerned on 6-12-69 was clearly beyond the competence of the president under Rule 8 of the new rules called "management of Recognised non-government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969" which came into force on and from July 15, 1969. Secondly, it is said that after the ad-hoc committee assumed charge, the managing committeee could not have passed the impugned order of termination of the petitioner's employment.

(3.) AS regards the first point, the date of the commencement of the new rules is not disputed nor it is disputed that the ad-hoc committee was appointed on supersession by an order of the president on 6th December, 1969. Clearly, therefore, under rule 8 of the new Rules there is no power of the board to appoint an ad-hoc committee. The only power that is given under rule 8 is to appoint an 'administrator' to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the committee. On a comparative study of the earlier rule, namely, rule 6, it appears that the power to set up an ad-hoc committee was expressly given, but this had been significantly omitted from the present rule. On a fair reading of these rules, I have no doubt that the appointment of the ad-hoc committee on 6-12-69 when the new rule was enforced was beyond the competence of the concerned authorities and therefore invalid. The only consequence is that the resolution passed by such a committee terminating the employment of the petitioner must be held equally to be invalid.