HARISHCHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a guardian of a student of High School, Barkagaon, in the district of Shahabad, has challenged the order dated 6th of July, 1970 (Annexure 3 to the petition) of the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar (respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal or the petitioner before him against the constitution of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school and holding that selection of the guardians' representatives to the Managing Committee of the school was valid. At a meeting dated 22nd of February, 1970, Dharamjit Singh and Rakchapal Singh (Respondents 5 and 6) were selected as guardians' representatives to the Managing Committee or the school. It is this selection which was challenged by the petitioner before the President, Board of Secondary Education.

(2.) The petitioner is a guardian of a student of the school is not in dispute. The main ground on which the selection of respondents 5 and 6 to the Managing Committee is challenged is that the petitioner had no clear ten days' notice of the meeting as required by Rule 10-B of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules"). Chapter III of the Rules deals with constitution of Managing Committee of a school, other than a proprietary school. It is admitted that High School, Barkagaon, is a school other than proprietary school and this Chapter applies to it. Rule 3, which is the first rule of this Chapter, lays down that Managing Committee of such a school shall consist of :--

(3.) Respondents 5, 6 and 10 (the teachers' representative to the Managing Committee of the school) have filed show cause stating that notices were issued to all the guardians as early as 7th of February, 1970 and repeatedly on subsequent dates through their wards and, therefore, the petitioner had ten clear days' notice of the meeting. Their case further is that the petitioner participated in the meeting held on 22nd of February, 1970 and did not raise any objection as to want of sufficient notice; he cannot, therefore, be allowed to raise this objection.