SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) The petitioners herein have filed this writ application in the nature of mandamus and called in question the legality and validity of the Memo No. OLP/50/2016 dated June 23, 2016, OLP/47/2016, OLP/48/2016 both dated 23rd May, 2016 and also Rule 19 and Rule 20(iii) of the service rules regarding 'Terms of employment of service conditions of teaching and non -teaching staff' and prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities not to give an effect to those memo numbers and the said service rules as mentioned hereinabove.
(2.) According to the writ petitioner, the said memo numbers were issued to them arbitrarily and violated the principles of natural justice as well as the stipulation of Rule 19 and Rule 20(iii) of their terms and conditions are unconstitutional.
(3.) As against this, the respondent attacked the grounds of relief, and has submitted that no writ application lies before this Court since the institution is not run by the state or there was ever any funding from the state and it is absolutely a non - aided school. He had also supported the contention of the Memo Nos. OLP/50/2016, OLP/47/2016 and OLP/48/2016 and contended that those memo numbers were issued by the school authority in terms of their rules and regulations and there is no illegality in it. Supporting the said memo numbers, he contended that an advocate has been appointed as enquiry officer does not mean that the said advocate will act on behalf of the disciplinary authority. He categorically submitted that an advocate is supposed to be an unbiased person and he shall adjudicate the departmental proceedings with the assistance of the presenting officer and also in presence of the delinquent writ petitioner. So there is no scope of apprehension of any violation of principles of natural justice. He wondered by saying that how the present writ petitioner apprehends that the said advocate would be biased. By virtue of the said Memo Nos. OLP/50/2016, OLP/47/2016 and OLP/48/2016 two advocates have been appointed by the disciplinary authority for domestic enquiry in regard to several charges against the writ petitioners. He contended that Rule 19 and Rule 20(iii) are in the 'Terms of employment of service conditions of teaching and non -teaching staff' of the said institution and before accepting the job of assistant teacher, they have accepted the said rules and regulations. According to him, in such circumstances, such challenges do not lie in their mouths. Since they have accepted the rules and regulations of the authority concerned and, as thereafter they were appointed, so they cannot challenge the said circulars at this stage. In fine he has prayed for dismissal of the writ application with cost.;