JADUNANDAN PURI Vs. PRESIDENT BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by Jadu-nandan. Puri under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated the 23rd February, 1974, as contained in Annexure 5, passed by the District Education Officer (respondent No. 2) approving the appointment of Surendra Deo Singh (respondent No. 7) as the Head Master of Ashok Ucha Vidyalaya at Daudnagar in the district of Aurangabad, as recommended by the ad hoc managing committee of the said school (respondents Nos. 4 to 6) by its resolution dated the 29th January, 1971 as contained in Annexure F to the counter-affidavit filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 7- In the application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 7, for direction to the authorities to take steps for appointment of a permanent Head Master afresh, in accordance with law, and for a further direction to respondent No. 3 (the Sub-divisional Education Officer) to take steps for expeditious re constitution of the Managing Committee of the said school.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point involved in this application, it will be necessary to state briefly the facts, as stated by the petitioner in his writ application:-- His application relates to a non-Government recognised High School known as "Ashok Ucha Vidyalaya" at Daudnagar in the district of Aurangabad, The managing committee of the aforesaid school was constituted on the 11th of May, 1973, An appeal was filed against the constitution of the above committee under Rule 40 of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), before the President of the Board of Secondary Education (respondent No. 1) who set aside the constitution of the above managing committee, and directed reconstitution thereof within the maximum period of two months by his order dated the 7th November, 1973, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. By the said order the President of the Board had also directed that during the above period the Head Master of the School, the departmental representative as well as life members would continue to function as members of the Managing Committee. The petitioner further stated in his application that there was no life member in the said school. Respondent No. 3 unauthorisedly nominated respondents Nos. 5 and 8, in place of life members, who were merely donor members. Although, the President had directed the election of the new Managing Committee to be completed within two months, no election was held till the filing of the writ application by the petitioner in this Court. The ad hoc managing committee took steps for appointment of a permanent Head Master for the said school by issuing advertisement for the same, which was published in the Searchlight dated the 15th January, 1974. A copy of the said publication is Annexure 2. According to the petitioner, the advertisement ought to have been published at least in two daily newspapers of Bihar, as per regulations and the rules framed under Section 8 (1) of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1950. The petitioner has further stated in his application that he along with others made applications for appointment to the post of the Head Master. He also stated that he had been officiating as Head Master of the School continuously from the year 1971. He had also functioned in the said capacity in the year 1968 till October, 1969. He was in service in the said school from 1945 and had been Assistant Head Master since 1955. The petitioner is an M.A. trained and he has till now put in over 28 years of service as teacher in various capacities in the said school. He has further asserted in paragraph 9 of the application that respondents Nos. 5 and 5 held a farcical interview on the 29th January. 1974 and recommended the names of the following three persons in order of preference for appointment to the post of the Head Master of the said school to respondent No. 2 the District Education Officer:--

(3.) No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. However, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on the 26th November, 1974, inter alia, submitting therein that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order as contained in Annexure 5; the petitioner having acquiesced and participated in the interview, was estopped from challenging the same. On the point of estoppel in paragraph 8 it was further mentioned that in pursuance of the direction of the President (respondent No. 1) a meeting was held in the school on the 9th December, 1973, by respondent No. 3 for the purpose of electing the President and the Secretary of the School. It was attended by the petitioner in the capacity of the Head Master in charge along with respondents 5 and 6. Respondent No. 5 proposed the name of respondent No. 6 for the post of the President, which was seconded by the petitioner and accordingly, respondent No. 6 was unanimously declared elected as the President of the School. Respondent No. 6 proposed the name of respondent No. 5 for the post of the Secretary which was seconded by the petitioner and, accordingly, respondent No. 5 was elected as the Secretary of the School.