AJIT KUMAR BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the action taken by the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Board, for short) in respect of the Management of Bapujinagar High School. The Managing Committee of the said school was constituted on 24th February, 1992 with the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as its President, Vice President and Secretary respectively and other writ petitioners as its members. By an order of the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dated 5-5-1995 as conveyed to the Head Master of the said school by the Secretary of the Board under his letter dated 15-5-1995, annexure-E to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, an Ad hoc Committee was appointed for the management of the said school for a period til1 4-5-1996 or till the reconstitution of the Managing Committee or until further order whichever would be earlier. The Assistant inspector of Schools, Ranaghat sub-division has been appointed the president of that Ad hoc Committee. The grievance of the petitioners is that the President of the Board superseded the elected Managing Committee of the school unjustly and illegally without giving any opportunity to the Committee to present its case before the Board. Under R. 8(1) of the Management of Recognised Non-government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (Management Rules, for short), the Executive Committee of the Board has the power to supersede the Managing Committee of a school if the Executive Committee is of opinion that the Managing Committee is not functioning properly and in that case the Executive Committee of the Board is also empowered to appoint an Administrator or a Ad hoc Committee to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Committee. The proviso to the said R.8(1) requires that before superseding a Managing Committee the Executive Committee of the Board shall however afford a reasonable opportunity to the Managing Committee to present its case before the Executive Committee. Sub-rule (1a) of R. 8 of the Management Rules however contains independent provision under which the Executive Committee of the Board has also power to appoint an Administrator or Ad hoc Committee in respect of any institution where the term of the Committee has expired but the Committee has not been reconstituted for any reason whatsoever. Rule 12 of the Management Rules provides that the term of the Managing Committee 'shall be three years from the date on which its constitution or reconstitution is completed by the election of the office bearers and nomination by the Director or from the date of expiry of the term of the previous Committee whichever is later'. The first proviso to the said R. 12 however provides that such term may be extended by the Executive Committee of the Board for sufficient reasons, by a period not exceeding one year, but in exceptional circumstances it may be extended for such further period so however that the total period shall not exceed two years. Clause 31 of the Prescribed Procedure for Holding Election provides that unless there is specific approval from the Board 8 extending the statutory term of a Managing Committee, every member of such Committee shall have to vacate on the expiry of its usual term of three years.

(2.) The position in law is therefore clear that the normal tenure of the Managing Committee of a school is three years and on the expiry of the said normal tenure of three years the Managing Committee becomes functus officio unless its tenure is extended by the Board under the first proviso to R. 12 of the Management Rules. The Managing Committee of the concerned school in our present case, having been constituted on the 24th February, 1992 its normal tenure of three years expired on 24th February, 1995. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the Managing Committee of the school adopted a resolution on the 14th November, 1994 for making a prayer to the Board for extension of the term of the Managing Committee up to 4th October, 1995 and they also prepared an election programme in detail for the purpose of holding election for the reconstitution of the Managing Committee and forwarded the same to the Board under the letter dated the 19th November, 1994, annexure-B to the writ petition. According to the proposed programme the election process starting with the publication of the provisional voters' list was to commence on the 24th July, 1995 and the election was to be held on the 27th August, 1995. It appears that the Board wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Managing Committee which is dated 17-1-1995. Annexure-D to the writ petition, in which the Secretary was asked to inform the Board as to what steps had been taken on the Board's Circular No. S / 192 dated 8-6-1994 Clause 1 (c) and also the reason for non-approval of the proposed voters' list. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the said circular No. S/192 dated 1-6-1994 was not at all applicable to the Managing Committee of their school and the recital in the said letter that the Head Master did not approve the election programme submitted by the Managing Committee was also factually confusing inasmuch as the voters' list has to be' submitted not by the Managing Committee but by the Head Master and has to be approved by the Managing Committee, but the recital in the letter indicated 'a reverse process which, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, reflected total non-application of mind. There is no doubt that the said letter regarding approval of the voters' list contains a confused proposition but that by itself does not add to the merit of the petitioners' case. It is also true that the Board's circular No. S /192 dated 8-6-94 was not applicable to the Managing Committee of the school involved in this writ petition as the term of the Managing Committee was to continue in its normal course up to 24-2-1995 without the aid of the said circular. By its circular No. S / 192 dated 8-6-1994, annexureD to the writ petition, the Board extended the tenures of the Managing Committees / Ad hoc Committees / Organising Committees / Administrators of all schools in general up to 31-12-94 or till the completion of election of office bearers or until further order, whichever would be earlier, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. It is therefore evident that the question of application of the said circular could arise only in respect of such schools the tenure of whose Managing Committees/ Ad hoc Committees / Administrators would 'expire before 31-12-1994, thus evidently the said circular would not apply to a Managing Committee whose normal tenure was to continue up to any date beyond 31-12-1994. Therefore the said circular was not at all applicable to the 'Managing Committee of the school involved in this writ petition and accordingly the Board's letter dated 17-1-1995 referred to above is slightly misconceived. but as I have mentioned, that by itself will not create any right in favour of the Managing Committee of the school to continue beyond its normal term of three years unless the Board extends its term. It is not in dispute that the Board did not extend the normal term of the Managing Committee of this school by any specific order intended for this school alone.

(3.) The petitioners however contend that by circular No. S/421 dated 29-12-1994, annexure-C to the writ petition, the Board in general extended the tenure of Managing Committees of all schools up to 30-6-1995 and 9 accordingly the tenure of the Managing Committee of the school involved in this writ petition also got extended, beyond its normal tenure expiring on 24-2-1995, till 30-6-1995 in terms of that general circular. It is on the other hand contended on behalf of the respondents that the said circular of the Board dated 29-12-1994 did not apply to the Managing Committee of this school inasmuch as the said circular had been expressly made subject to certain conditions mentioned therein and the Managing Committee of the concerned school did not satisfy any of such conditions as applicable to the case. The general extension of tenure which was granted by the said circular was made subject to the following conditions, viz. :-