- (1.) THE petitioner in this application is a Headmaster of Belgachia Mahatma Aswini Dutta High School. He joined the said School on 1st November, 1965, as an Assistant Teacher. He was promoted to the Assistant Headmaster on 1st of February, 1966 and was further promoted on 1st April, 1966 as Officiating Headmaster. With effect from 29th June, 1966 the petitioner was working as a Headmaster in this School. On 1st February, 1967 the School was upgraded as a High School and the petitioner became Headmaster of the said School. It is alleged that his appointment was duly approved by the district Inspector of Schools, Howrah. It is further alleged that the Managing Committee of the School was reconstituted in 1968 and the Managing Committee was started functioning with effect from 21st September, 1968. The Secretary of the Managing Committee, it is alleged that in collusion with the respondent No. 2, was functioning improperly. The teachers were not being paid their full salaries and to the said illegalities it is alleged that the petitioner raised objection whereupon the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 became very much annoyed with the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner was sick and could not attend classes with effect from 13th September, 1969 and resumed his duty on 28th February, 1970. The petitioner was preparing for the M. A. Examination for 1969 and the M. A. Examination began on and from 30th February, 1970 and the petitioner applied for leave with effect from 29th February, 1970 to 30th March, 1970 for the purpose of appearing in the Examination. The M. A. Examination continued up to 26th March, 1970 and the petitioner thereupon filed another application for extension of the leave. It appears that the petitioner received a letter from the Secretary of the School on 2nd March, 1970 enclosing a copy of the resolution stating that the petitioner was removed from the post of Headmaster and was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher without giving any charge-sheet, without asking him any explanation and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Against the said order of demotion, the petitioner moved this application challenging the resolution dated 22nd February, 1970. The parties to this application are, respondent No. 1 is a Managing Committee of the school and respondents Nos. 2 to 12 are stated to be members of the Managing Committee, respondents Nos. 13 and 14 are District Inspector of Schools and West Bengal Board of Secondary education. It may be stated straightway that neither the District Inspector of the School nor the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had passed any order against the petitioner. The petitioner's challenge is against the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the School and therefore in order to set aside the resolution the petitioner prayed for a writ for cancelling or withdrawing the said resolution. If the relief is to be granted to the petitioner as claimed, a writ will have to be issued to the Managing Committee of the School. A writ cannot be issued in the facts of this case on the West Bengal Board of Secondary education or on the District Inspector of School because the impugned resolution was not passed by the Board or by the District Inspector of the School. The point, therefore, arises whether a writ can issue against the Managing Committee of the School.
(2.) MR. Chakraborty ' on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Managing committee is a statutory body and as such writ may issue against it as the resolution reverting the petitioner was passed without the prior approval of the Board of Secondary Education. Mr. Chakraborty further contended that in any school (aided or unaided) the powers of the Committee in so far as the disciplinary proceeding is concerned against the teacher either temporary or permanent and the other employees are to be found in rule 28 (8) of the Rules framed for the management of recognised non-Government Institution (aided or unaided, 1969 ). It is stated that the power of demotion cannot be passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner is not one of removal or dismissal by the Managing Committee but is a demotion. If it is demotion, it does not appear to me that the Rule 28 (8) has any application in the facts of this case. The next point argued by Mr. Chakraborty is that a writ lies against the Managing Committee of the School because in the submission of Mr. Chakraborty, the Managing Committee is a statutory body. He referred to me the unreported decision being Civil Rule No. 204 (W) of 1967 decided on 27th February, 1968 wherein D. Basu J. made an observation as follows : "this much is clear, however, that this fact of the petitioners preferring appeal to the appeal committee would not bar the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as it is not that verbal order which is the subject-matter of complaint in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution but a written resolution passed by the managing Committee of the School which was the statutory authority to discharge the teachers. "
(3.) MR. Chakraborty on the basis of the said decision sought to argue that the Managing Committee of the School is a statutory body and as such writ may go against the Managing Committee. He referred to Section 2 (d) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act of 1963 which defines the said Committee. Section 2 (d) of the said Act runs as follows : " 'managing Committee' used in reference to an Institution includes Governor or governing Body of such an Institution. '' The Rule framed under the said Act also defines 'committee' under Rule 2 sub-rule (c ). 'committee' means 'managing committee' as defined in clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act. It appears further as Mr. Chakraborty contended that under Rule 28 (8) the power of dismissal or removal of the employees or teachers of the School is subject to prior approval of the Board. Therefore in so far as those powers are concerned, the Managing Committee's powers are limited under the statutory limitation and if it is found that the Managing Committee exceeds or acts beyond the limitation, then in the submission of Mr. Chakraborty, this court has jurisdiction to issue a writ on the Managing Committee. Mr. Chakraborty referred to me the case reported in 56 CWN 861 B. Dasgupta v. Bejoy as also against University and Syndicate) in order to show that writ lies against the State Medical Faculty. He also referred to 56 CWN 278 Deepa Pal v. University of Calcutta to show that the writ lies against the university.;