CHITTARANJAN SI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the first life member has challenged the action of the Additional District inspector of schools (S. E) Contai Sub-Division, Purba Medinipur, respondent No. 5 in nominating the respondent no. 9 to represent the next Managing Committee (for short 'the Committee' ).

(2.) THE facts in brief are: that in the year 1995 the petitioner had donated a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and by a memo No. 578 dated 20th October, 1995 was accepted as the second life member of the school. Subsequently, the petitioner became the sole life member. On 30th April, 2004 the respondent no. 8 was accepted as a life member. On 20th April, 2005 the Committee of the school was reconstituted. The respondent No. 8 represented the committee from the category of life member. On 21st September, 2007 the respondent No. 9 was accepted as a life member. Thereafter, in accordance with law, pursuant to the elections held in the month of January/february, 2008 the Committee was reconstituted. By memo dated 18th February, 2008 the respondent No. 5 had nominated the respondent No. 9 to represent the newly constituted Committee from the category of life member. According to the petitioner, since the respondent No. 9 was not previously subjected to any rotation under Rule 6a of the Rules for Management of Recognised non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 (for short 'the Rules')the said respondent is not entitled to be nominated. Moreover, as there is no dispute regarding the formation of the Committee and the challenge is with regard to the nomination of the respondent No. 9, the writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 9, justifying the nomination and referring to the Craies on Statute Law, submitted that the primary duty of a Court of law is to find the natural meaning of the word rotation used in the context in which it occurs. In the instant case as the said respondent on 21st September, 2007 was accepted as a life member which is in consonance with the notification dated 4th december, 1981 and in view of proviso to Rule 6a (1), such nomination from the category of life member is just and proper. Moreover, as there is an alternative remedy under Rule 6 (5) for redressal of the dispute, the writ petition is not maintainable.