- (1.) The petitioner is the Headmaster of a Government Aided Institution, namely Mitra Institution (Main). He was placed under suspension with effect from 30th April, 2010. The suspension order was communicated to him by a notice issued by the Secretary of the said school on 6th May, 2010. Such suspension order was issued by the school authority on the basis of a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the said school on 29 th April, 2010. The legality and/or validity of such suspension order is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the said suspended Headmaster. It is alleged by the petitioner that the order of suspension was illegal as the said suspension order was issued on the basis of an invalid resolution adopted by the school authority on 29 th April, 2010. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said resolution as the meeting, in which such resolution was adopted, had no quorum. Admittedly, there were 13 members in the Managing Committee of the said school. Out of those 13 members 7 members were present at the meeting. Thus, more than 50% members were present at the meeting. Apparently there was quorum in the meeting in which such resolution was adopted.
(2.) It is, however, alleged by the petitioner that one of those 7 members namely the Departmental Nominee ceased to be a member of the said Managing Committee with effect from 1st September, 2009 as he retired from service on superannuation on 31 st August, 2009. Mr. Panja, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that once the departmental nominee ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee on his retirement, he cannot participate in the meeting as a member of the said Managing Committee. Thus, Mr. Panja contended that if the presence of the Departmental nominee is ignored then only 6 members were present in the said meeting. According to Mr. Panja, the meeting which was held on 29 th April, 2010 was illegal and invalid as there was no quorum in the said meeting and the resolution which was adopted in the said meeting, according to Mr. Panja, was also invalid and illegal for want of quorum in the said meeting. In support of such submission on the point of quorum Mr. Panja cited a decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of A.N. Chatterjee Vs. D.N. Halder; reported in 79 CWN page 260, wherein it was held that for constituting quorum in a meeting 50% of the total members with which the Committee was initially constituted must be present in the meeting.
(3.) Mr. Bari, learned Advocate, appearing for the school authority, disputed such contention of Mr. Panja by contending that Rule 28(9)(viia) of the Management Rules does not provide that at least 50% members must be present in the meeting in which an agenda regarding suspension of a teaching and/or non-teaching staff of an institution is transacted. According to him, statute is silent on the point as to requirement for formation of quorum in a meeting in which such an agenda regarding suspension of a teaching and/or non-teaching staff is transacted. He further contended that the provision regarding quorum in the meeting as contained in Rule 10(3) of the Management Rules refers to a meeting in which office bearer election is held. He, thus, contended that the provision contained in Rule 10(3) of the Management Rules has no application to a meeting in which an agenda regarding suspension of a teaching and/or non-teaching staff is transacted.;