AMIR HOSSAIN SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is made by one Amir Hossain Sardar and Arjahan Halder, claiming to be the President and Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, challenging the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education. By such impugned order the Managing Committee of the Madrasah was replaced by the Ad-hoc Committee after the term expired on 31.10.2001.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that before superseding the existing Managing Committee an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the existing Managing Committee. To that, the petitioners have relied upon Rule 8(1) of the Management Rules made for the purpose of running of the administration of such type of institutions. As per Rule 8 of the Management Rules, the Constitution of a Committee shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Committee of the Board and the Executive Committee shall have the power to supersede a committee when as per their opinion the Managing Committee is not functioning properly. By such supersession and Administrator or the Ad-hoc Committee can be directed to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the committee but as per proviso a reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the committee to present its case before the Executive Committee of the Board.

(3.) The petitioners have further relied upon a circular being Circular No. 1908 dated 17.9.96 by saying that extension of the tenure of the organising committee of the newly recognised Madrasah can be made under certain exigencies. The reason is to show in the circular that when the upgradation of the Institution was made virtually the existing Managing Committee had become the organising Committee. The petitioners strongly relied upon the judgments reported on 1976 CHN 810 (Sachi Nath Ghosh & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.) and 1979(2) CLJ 445 (Paik Para Manindra Memorial High School v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). It appears from the judgment of a single Bench of this Court that it is settled by now that is reasonable opportunity would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It has repeatedly been held that rules of natural justice cannot be reduced to a rigid formula or a straight jacket. As per proposition of law, law of natural justice do not require that a personal hearing must be given in every case. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case therein by reason of denial of a personal hearing, the Managing Committee has been denied a reasonable opportunity of stating its case. That being so, the impugned order must be held in contravention of Rule 8(1) of the Rules.