SHEO KUMAR PRASAD Vs. PRESIDENT OF BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Town High School, Hajipur, in the district of Muzaffarpur. He is also, according to the averment in the petition, entitled to be declared as a life member and donor, although, there has been no declaration in that regard as yet. The Managing Committee of the school, it appears, was completely constituted on 16-5-1969. On 14-6-1972, the petitioner received an order dated 8-6-1972, passed by respondent No. 1. A copy of the said order is annexure '1' to the writ application. The annexure in question constitutes an ad hoc committee for the management of the school. The view of the authorities is that after the expiry of three years from the constitution of the managing committee, the managing committee ceases to have legal existence, if a new managing committee has not been duly constituted. In that situation the President of the Board of Secondary Education has authority to constitute an ad hoc committee to carry on the management of the school. It was on the basis of this view that the order contained in the impugned annexure was passed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 5 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) contemplates the management of schools through a properly constituted managing committee. Once a managing committee has been duly constituted, the vacancies therein have to be filled in in accordance with the provision of the Act under the rules. The failure to fill those vacancies does not result in the managing committee becoming defunct and the President does not get any legal authority to constitute an ad hoc committee if there is a failure to appoint, elect or co-opt new members. Consequently it was contended that the power to appoint an ad hoc committee can only arise under Section 5 (3) of the Act or under Rule 39 of the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules); and the impugned action is not covered either by Section 5 of the Act or Rule 39.

(3.) These propositions were contested by learned Standing Counsel No. 2 on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Baidya Nath Prasad No. 2 supported the contention of the learned Standing Counsel and advanced further arguments in support of the stand taken by him. The substance of the contentions is that a managing committee ceases to have any legal existence on the expiry of three years from the date of the constitution. Further there is power to appoint an ad hoc committee under Rule 39 of the Rules even in circumstances, similar to those arising in the present case. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as also on behalf of respondent No. 4 there are some statements which indicate that the managing committee in question was not functioning properly. This aspect of the matter need not be considered in this writ application because the impugned order (annexure I) has not been passed under Section 5 (2) of the Act.