SYPE MD SALIM Vs. PRESIDENT BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed his nomination paper for a guardian's scat in the managing committee of Hitnarain Kashtriya Higher Secondary School, Arrah, which was rejected by the District Education Officer (opposite party No. 3). Against the said order of rejection of his nomination paper the petitioner filed an application under Rule 40 of the Bihar High Schools (Constituting Powers and Functions of the Managing Committee) Rules, 1964, before the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar opposite party No. f. The President of the Board referred the application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer for enquiry and report. During the pendency of this enquiry, on the 28th October, 1970 the District Education Officer issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to appear in his office with all relevant documents on the 3rd November, 1970. On the 1st November, 1970, the petitioner filed an application (annexure 7) expressing his inability to appear on the above date on account of Ramzan and requesting the District Education Officer to fix another date. It is alleged by the petitioner that thereafter he did not get any information and later, learnt that the District Education Officer had already submitted his report without hearing him. He, therefore, filed another application before the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education on the 21st December, 1970, making a grievance that although he had furnished all the information to the District Education Officer as required by him, he was not given an opportunity of being heard before making the report. He, 'therefore, prayed for the case being remanded to the District Education Officer, directing him to submit his report after having heard the petitioner or in the alternative, the President of the Board should himself hear the petitioner before any decision was taken in the matter. This application dated the 21st December, 1970, is annexure 8 to the present petition. It does not appear that the prayer made by the petitioner was acceded to by the President of the Board or that anything was done in that direction. The order of the President dated the 15th September, 1971 (annexure 1) however, shows that the application of the petitioner made under Rule 40 was dismissed in accordance with the opinion given by the Government pleader. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the above order of the President of the Board, dated the 15th September, 1971 and for quashing the election to the managing committee of the aforesaid school so far as the representatives of the guardians were concerned.

(2.) Mr. Radha Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a number of points but I think the matter can be decided without referring to all of them. It is not disputed that under Rule 40 it was the President who had to decide the matter. It is also well settled that when any authority is performing an act of quasi-judicial nature, viz., deciding the matter or dispute between the parties, it is performing a quasi-judicial function. It has not been disputed before me that while the President is deciding a dispute under Rule 40, he is performing a quasi-judicial function. No sooner there is a dispute on a point involved and it is referred to an authority for decision, the said authority must act in consonance with the principles of natural justice, i.e. the authority concerned must issue notice to the parties hear them if they do appear and proceed ex parte in the matter, if they do not choose to appear; but it cannot decide the matter without affording an opportunity to the person aggrieved to have his say in the matter. On the facts of the present case although notice was issued by the District Education Officer, no notice had been issued by the President himself.

(3.) Counsel for the opposite party, Mr. Nagendra Pd. Singh, in view of the various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, very fairly did not dispute this and submitted that once decision of the President is held to be a quasi-judicial function, he was bound to issue notice. This not having been done, the impugned order must be quashed. It is also clear that Rule 40 envisages that the decision should be of the President, i.e. he has to hear the parties, apply his mind to the dispute and then come to his own conclusions. The impugned order in the present case connotes that he has simply adopted or accepted the opinion expressed by the Government pleader. This is not a proper way of disposing of an application under Rule 40 of the aforesaid Rules. From this angle of vision also the impugned order is fit to be quashed. In this connection, I may refer to two decisions of this Court--Managing Committee of Arrah Town Higher Secondary School v. President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, 1971 BLJR 283 = (1971 Lab 1C 637) and Abinash Prasad v. B. P. Gyani, C.W.J.C. No. 1368 of 1971, decided on 18-11-197J (Pat). The aforesaid decisions also support the above view.