MISHRILAL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by Mishrilal Rai and Maheshwar Prasad Rai, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order passed by the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar (respondent No. 2), which was communicated to Maheshwar Prasad Rai (petitioner No. 2), the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Dhamaun High School, and to the Headmaster of the said School by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar (respondent No. 3), under letter, dated the 4th September, 1971 (Annexure 1). The gist of Annexure 1 is that according to the rules, the term of the Managing Committee of the said school had expired on the 30th October, 1971. Therefore, under orders of respondent No. 2, three persons were nominated to constitute ad hoc committee of the said school, to function till the Committee of the School was constituted, afresh.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points involved in this application, it will be necessary to state briefly some relevant facts. Misrilal Rai (petitioner No. 1) is the President of the said school, whereas Mahesh-war Prasad Rai (petitioner No. 2), as mentioned earlier, is the Secretary of the said school. The school in question is a Government aided school. According to the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964, as amended in 1967 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'), a Managing Committee of the said school was constituted in the year 1968. The President and the Secretary of the School were elected under Rule 9 of the Rules on the 1st November, 1968, The Managing Committee began to function from that date. The petitioners have mentioned in paragraph 2 (d) that under the provisions of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules, fresh constitution of the Managing Committee was to take place after the 1st November, 1971, even then respondent No. 2 passed the order nominating an ad hoc committee, which was communicated to the petitioners under Annexure 1.

(3.) Mr. J. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged the order on various grounds. He has submitted that:--